New York Times Lets Anonymous GOP Officials Float Bogus Explanations For Republican Inaction Against Vitter
(September 1, 2007 -- 10:41 AM EDT // link // )

Today's New York Times has a piece which delves into an important topic -- the contrast between the Republican leadership's handling of the Larry Craig and David Vitter scandals.

In Craig's case, of course, the leadership tossed him overboard faster than you can say "Wide Stance Larry." By contrast, when news of Senator Vitter's prostitute patronage broke this summer, the leadership basically winked, patted him on the back, and said, "What's a little prostitute frolicking between friends, as long as you piously acknowledged you've sinned?"

Unfortunately, in reporting on this glaring difference, The Times lets anonymous GOP officials get away with floating a bunch of justifications for it that are so absurd that they really have to be gazed upon to be believed.

Reporter Carl Hulse writes:

Despite such unusual steps against a Senate colleague, Republicans took no punitive action against Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, after his acknowledgment this summer of involvement with an escort service that the police described as a prostitution front.

Party officials said Mr. Vitter’s case was different in that he faced no criminal charges and was not in the Senate but was serving in the House at the time. In the case of Mr. Craig, they said experience from a recent string of misconduct cases, including the House page scandal that hurt Republicans last year, had shown there was no time to waste if the political fallout was to be minimized.

“We have learned we have to move quickly,” said a senior Senate official who did not want to be identified discussing the political ramifications of Mr. Craig’s case.

Okay, with the possible exception of the criminal question, this is all bull, pure and simple -- and it doesn't belong in the pages of the august New York Times, particularly coming from anonymous sources.

First, anonymous GOP officials are allowed to float the idea that a key difference here is that Vitter was in the House at the time of his transgressions. But this is just absurd. Vitter was in the Senate when we learned about his conduct this summer. Besides, are we really expected to believe that if Craig had been a member of the House, the dynamic would somehow have been different -- and the GOP leadership wouldn't have moved to oust him upon learning that he'd pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from his cruising in men's rooms? Really, now.

Indeed, when the news broke last fall that GOP Rep. Mark Foley -- who would be a member of the House -- wrote steamy emails to House pages, the GOP leadership criticized him and accepted his resignation.

Then these same anonymous officials are allowed to float the idea that the leadership acted quickly against Craig because they had learned to do so from the Foley affair. But the Vitter scandal broke this summer -- that is, long after the Foley one. So if they'd learned from Foley to move fast, why didn't they employ that knowledge when word of Vitter's indiscretions leaked?

You all know this already from Scott Lemieux and others, but the real difference between the Vitter and Craig cases is that Louisiana has a Dem governor, and thus would have replaced Vitter with a Dem, while Idaho's governor is a Republican, and will appoint a Republican to replace Craig -- one that will be a much stronger candidate in the 2008 Idaho Senate election than the badly-weakened Craig would have been. As Glenn Greenwald argues, the difference was all about the GOP's cost-free morality -- ousting Vitter would have cost the GOP a Senate seat, while ousting Craig costs nothing and essentially saves them one.

The Times piece doesn't share any of this basic info and context. Instead, anonymous GOP officials are allowed to float a bunch of comically transparent mumbo-jumbo that leaves readers less informed, rather than more so.

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

State Department Disagrees With Michael O'Hanlon, White House, Pentagon About GAO Iraq Report
(August 31, 2007 -- 3:55 PM EDT // link // )

It'll be interesting to see if this gets any attention.

Right now pro and anti-war forces are battling over the new nonpartisan Government Accountability Office report that leaked yesterday which says that the Iraqi government is falling short of virtually all the benchmarks that have been set for it. Because this new GAO report will be an effective weapon to use against the positive assessment that General Petraeus is likely to deliver next month to Congress, the pro-war forces are eager to discredit it.

The White House is claiming that the report is overly negative. The Pentagon wants the GAO to revise it to reflect a more positive assessment. And pro-war Brookings Institution figure Michael O'Hanlon sharply criticized the report today, saying that he hopes it will be "improved" to provide a rosier view of the war.

It turns out, however, that a rather significant player disagrees with O'Hanlon, the White House, and the Pentagon about the GAO report: The State Department.

Check out this little nugget buried in an article in today's Washington Post on the GAO report:

The draft has circulated within the State and Defense departments for comment before its publication.

Although the State Department proposed some changes, it did not dispute the basic conclusions, said an administration official involved in Iraq policy. The Pentagon, however, "made some factual corrections" and "offered some suggestions on a few of the actual grades," Morrell said.

So officials at the State Department read a draft of the report and didn't dispute its "basic conclusions" -- unlike the White House and O'Hanlon.

Because this was sourced to an anonymous administration official, I put in a call to State to verify the story. A spokesperson for the State Department declined to comment -- which probably means that we can assume for the time being that this is true.

I'm really not sure how to assess the significance of this, but it certainly seems noteworthy. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, one of the two key officials delivering his assessment of Iraq in September, is part of the State Department. And apparently the professionals at State, which has a key role in overseeing and assessing the political process in Iraq, agree with the GAO report's extremely dire view of the political failures of the Iraqi government. And State disagrees with the White House, O'Hanlon, and the Pentagon, who are refusing to see these failures for what they are.

Will Crocker's assessment reflect what others at State think? Will such State views be made public? With the battle for public opinion set to reach a white hot temperature next week, this little tidbit seems at the very least to be worthy of further inquiry.

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

Big News Orgs Finally Getting It Right On "Petraeus Report"!
(August 31, 2007 -- 10:13 AM EDT // link // )

Since this blog yelled so much about this last week, it seems only fair to give credit where it's due: The big news orgs are now getting it right on the "Petraeus report."

They are indicating accurately now that this report is not going to be Petraeus' but in fact will be the work of the White House -- i.e., the same crew that lied us into the war, has been lying for years to keep us there, and will continue to lie this fall in a last-ditch effort to stretch things out as long as possible.

The New York Times, today:

The top American officials in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, are to present their assessments on how calm things are at eagerly awaited Congressional hearings in mid-September. Their findings, and a White House report due Sept. 15, are seen as a potential trigger for a change in Iraq strategy.

The Washington Post, today:

During the week of Sept. 10, Congress will hear a progress report on the war from the U.S. commander in Baghdad, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker. After those hearings and a formal report from President Bush, lawmakers will renew their debate on the war.

The Washington Post, today:

Democrats seized on the GAO draft conclusions, first reported in yesterday's Washington Post, to warn that President Bush would be likely to distort the Iraq situation when he makes his own report to Congress in mid-September after long-awaited testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.

The Associated Press, today:

Jones briefs Congress next week on his assessment of the Iraqi security forces, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, testify the week of Sept. 10. Bush will deliver his own progress report by Sept. 15.

CNN, yesterday:

MCINTYRE (on camera): So, while General Petraeus will not be issuing a formal report, there will be no shortage of reading material next month. In addition to an independent review of Iraqi forces, both the White House and the Government Accountability Office will issue separate reports on Iraqi benchmarks.

...of course, there's still a bit of boneheaded behavior going on, such as this from Time magazine (via Nexis):

Few expect any significant change in the overall war strategy when the White House releases Petraeus' report on the surge by Sept. 15.

Not sure why it took so long to get these simple facts right, but so be it.

Now the big test will be whether the big news orgs can report accurately on what Petraeus actually says, rather than what the White House says he's saying. Also, as Kevin Drum says, to aggressively compare what Petraeus says to actual statistical reality.

Recall that The Washington Post reported recently that Petraeus was able to soften the conclusions of that recent National Intelligence Estimate expressing deep pessimism about Iraq. So let's hope that the big news orgs don't accord the Gospel According to Petraeus too much reverence.

Optimistic?

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

To reach me, please email me at greg@talkingpointsmemo.com.

New Media Meme: White House Is "Confident" It Will Win Iraq Fight Against Dems
(August 30, 2007 -- 2:35 PM EDT // link // )

As you probably remember, one of the more unsightly aspects of the press' performance during the 2006 midterm elections was its constant assertion, no matter what the polls said, that the GOP was "confident" and "gleeful" and "on the offensive" against the Dems. A bunch of us stamped our feet for weeks about this, and the big news orgs finally started telling the story right, helping lead to the rout of the Republicans.

Now this is starting to happen again. And this time, the new media meme has it that the White House is "confident" that it's going to "win" the coming showdown with the Dem Congress on Iraq.

Check out the headline and lede on this New York Times piece today:

White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — The White House is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq, a significant turnabout from two months ago, when a string of Republican defections had administration officials worried that President Bush’s troop buildup was in serious danger on Capitol Hill.

Guess how many administration officials are quoted saying that the White House is "confident" that it can "win" the Iraq fight? Exactly none. One former official says he detects a "tonal shift" but says that it could be "ephemeral." A second official says -- anonymously -- that there's a "sense the dynamic has changed," but concedes the fight is up in the air. Only one former official says anything close to this, noting that people think the surge will continue into the spring -- hardly a sign of sweeping confidence in long-term victory. Maybe the White House is confident about this fight, but you wouldn't know it from the quotes in this piece.

Meanwhile, pundit Charlie Cook is quoted saying the momentum is "probably" with the White House right now. This echoes other punditry we're starting to hear. But really, this notion of "momentum" is all too often a Beltway-concocted illusion, the result of a hall-of-mirrors effect where one pundit repeats it after hearing it from another pundit, who heard it from another pundit, and so on. Republican lawmakers on recess are getting pummeled by constituents demanding an end to the war -- constituents who are outside the Beltway and don't particularly care who Charlie Cook claims has "momentum." Who's to know which way the momentum is really going?

This is also an emerging narrative at other big news orgs. Yesterday The Washington Post published a story saying that the White House believes that the Dem Congress will be reluctant to confront the White House and demand a drawdown of troops after General Petraeus testifies about progress in Iraq. The basis for this claim? A single anonymous source. Incredibly, no Dem was allowed to rebut this.

Look, again, maybe the White House is confident that it will win this fight. After all, Dems are a long way from a veto-proof majority. Nonetheless, this assertion just isn't being backed up by reporting in the papers that are telling us that it is so. Indeed, it seems more likely that this emerging storyline is based on nothing more than an editorial decision to assert that it's the case. Exactly the way it happened in 2006 -- until the big news orgs finally decided to get the story right.

Update: Apologies for all the tech difficulties today...

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

Rudy To Become First Prez Candidate To Attend 9/11 Ceremony -- How Will Media React?
(August 29, 2007 -- 1:57 PM EDT // link // )

As you all know, this blog marvels regularly at the way the media covers Rudy at 9/11. From the routine granting of counter-terrorism credentials to Rudy by reporters and commentators, to the refusal of pundits to talk about Rudy's hideous Ground Zero gaffe, coverage of Rudy never ceases to amaze and flabbergast.

Now some more Rudy 9/11 news has broken this morning, and it offers another big test for our media to fail in its coverage of "Americas Mayor."

According to The New York Times and the Associated Press, Rudy has accepted an invitation to speak at the Ground Zero ceremony surrounding the sixth anniversary of 9/11. While Rudy has spoken at every one of these ceremonies previously, this is the first time Rudy is doing this as a Presidential candidate -- which means Rudy will become the first Presidential candidate ever to speak at one of these.

This is not a clear-cut case, because Rudy was Mayor of New York, but given the centrality of 9/11 to Rudy's Presidential campaign, he should have erred on the side of decency and skipped the event. And indeed, first responders and relatives of 9/11 victims are already livid about it:

"He's cashing in on 9/11 like it's his own personal tragedy. It's a photo op on a campaign swing for him," said Jimmy Riches, a deputy fire chief whose son was among the 343 firefighters killed.

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was also killed, said she was stunned that the city would ask a presidential candidate to speak there.

"They should have every other single presidential candidate then, because this is outrageous," Regenhard said. "This is going to be seen across the country as a blanket endorsement from us. It's totally inappropriate."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all suggesting that there's any chance that Rudy will stop exploiting 9/11 and exaggerating his Masterfully Churchillian Performance that day. At this point doing these things is as natural to Rudy as breathing.

The larger question here is this: When will Rudy's naked opportunism around 9/11 become a part of the larger media and pundit narrative about this race?

From today's news, to some other news today that Rudy is actually putting together a group called "First Responders for Rudy," to Rudy's constant mentions of 9/11, to the constant exaggerations about his own performance that day, there's no longer any doubt whatsoever about the broader storyline here.

Yet the usual way the press handles this is to point out that by running on the record of his 9/11 performance, Rudy has opened himself to scrutiny and criticism of that same record. In other words, the press' basic approach here is to see this as a substantive argument about the merits or demerits of his performance -- rather than as a window onto Rudy's character. The few pundits who did weigh in on Rudy's 9/11 gaffe noted that he'd screwed up by insulting the workers -- without making the natural leap to the larger story, i.e., Rudy's exploitation of the attacks. The chore of pointing out Rudy's political use of 9/11 is always left to the angry first responders and 9/11 widows to make in scattered press reports like those today.

Consider, by contrast, how quickly even the most trivial or even false anecdote about Dems can enter the media narrative as a sweeping character indictment. Gore's earth tones? Phony. Kerry ordering swiss on a Philly cheese stake? Effete buffoon. Hillary's southern drawl? More of the same old Clintonian calcuation. Edwards' haircut? Presumed hypocrisy. Yet here we have in Rudy's case not just one individual and meaningless anecdote but a broader pattern that unquestionably tells us a great deal about who Rudy is and what he's up to. Yet nothing -- literally nothing -- will get the pundits to start seeing him in such terms.

Rudy's speech at the upcoming 9/11 ceremony would be a good place to start.

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