Big News Orgs: "Petraeus Report...Petraeus Report...Petraeus Report"
August 22, 2007 -- 3:45 PM EST // //
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:
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.