New York Times' Gordon Contradicts His Paper's Own Reporting In Portraying Decline In Iraqi Violence
(September 8, 2007 -- 3:20 PM EDT // link // )

As Josh notes over at TPM this morning, today's New York Times has what he calls a surprisingly "credulous" report by Michael Gordon saying that data assembled by the military shows that the surge has produced a decline in various measures of bloodshed in Iraq.

Josh aptly recommends comparing today's piece with this one in The Washington Post earlier this week showing a good deal more skepticism towards the military's assertions.

I'd like to recommend another comparison: Let's compare today's Times piece with one that appeared in The Times itself less than a week ago reporting that civilian casualties are up across Iraq.

That earlier piece, by James Glanz, relied on figures supplied by Iraqi officials. Its key conclusion was that civilian deaths had gone up in August:

Newly released statistics for Iraqi civilian deaths in August reflect the strikingly mixed security picture that has emerged from a gradual six-month increase in American troop strength here: the number of deaths across the country rose by about 20 percent since July, but in the capital itself, the number dropped sharply...

...figures provided to The New York Times by an Interior Ministry official who asked to remain anonymous indicated that 2,318 civilians died violently in the country in August, compared with 1,980 in July.

So, Glanz's key conclusion was that casualties were up one-fifth in August across Iraq. Right?

Yet today's report by Gordon quotes military officials explicitly making the opposite argument: That in August, "the most significant gains in reducing violence materialized not only in Baghdad, but also across Iraq."

So, which is it?

Now, slicing and dicing these numbers gets endlessly complex, and the answers often depend on which sets of numbers are being compared. But in this case, it's pretty clear what happened. Glanz compared the numbers Iraqi gave him for August with the numbers from July, and concluded that from one month to the next, civilian deaths had gone up.

Gordon, by contrast, relying on American military statistics and Iraqi ones, compared August's numbers with those of December 2006. This showed a decline, he reports. Of course, December 2006 represented an all-time high in violence, he also notes in the piece.

Which methodology do you think is a better way to assess the success of the "surge"?

Whatever your conclusion on that question, one thing seems obvious. If you're going to publish a piece showcasing the military's claim that the "most significant gains" in violence reduction occurred in August, your effort becomes a heck of a lot less credible when your own paper reached precisely the opposite conclusion less than a week ago.

CNN's Jack Cafferty Parrots Winger Line On Dems And Iraq Report
(September 8, 2007 -- 1:14 PM EDT // link // )

Jack, don't do this. It's beneath you.

As this blog noted yesterday, The Washington Times and the winger bloggers have been bashing the heck out of Dem Congressional leaders because they describe the coming Iraq assessment as the "Bush report," rather than the "Petraeus report." But as also noted yesterday, the legislation that mandates the report explicitly states that "the President" -- you know, Bush -- is the person who ultimately prepares the report. It's the White House's work, while the commanding general only offers Congressional testimony.

Alas, the wingers have now succeeded in kicking up just enough noise to snooker a major news organization into parroting this transparent mumbo-jumbo almost verbatim. Take a look at this screen grab of CNN and Jack Cafferty:

The headline there reads:

Dems: "The Bush Report"

Dismissing Report On Iraq

And the question Cafferty poses to viewers reads:

Is it wrong for Democrats to dismiss Petraeus' progress report on Iraq before he even delivers it?

You can almost marvel at how exquisitely woven a tapestry of GOP talking points this is. Cafferty's full report, while containing a very brief allusion to the Democratic argument, basically hews to the line set forth above. He even reads the WashTimes's quotes of a GOP leader bashing Dems without letting any Dems rebut the basic charges.

What's more, the report that Dems are referring to is not "Petraeus' progress report." It is the written report that the White House will be preparing and submitting after Petraeus testifies to Congress -- again, as mandated by the legislation. To call the White House report the "Bush report" is not necessarily to "dismiss" what Petraeus says wholesale. It's merely to point out that what the White House's written report ultimately does with Petraeus' public and private testimony should be evaluated in light of who's preparing it. Nothing wrong with that.

Finally, Cafferty chastises Dems for dismissing the report "before they had any idea" what will be in it. But come on: We in fact have a very good idea what will be in the report. There have been multiple leaks to the media informing us that the report will likely rely on Petraeus' assertion that the surge is working, offering as central evidence the fact that sectarian killings are way down. These known points are exactly what Dems are disputing. So this hardly amounts to dismissing the report before Dems have "any idea" what it's going to say.

Really, these facts constitute the basics. Is a cursory awareness of them too much to expect?

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

Wingers Attack Democrats For Accurately Describing Iraq Report As Work Of White House
(September 7, 2007 -- 12:38 PM EDT // link // )

Really, you couldn't ask for a more perfect postcript to the whole battle over what to call the "Petraeus report" than this. Just unreal.

For a day or so now the right-wing media and bloggers have been attacking Congressional Democrats because of the way they've been talking about the Iraq report that's due to be delivered to Congress next week.

Their beef? Well, they literally appear to be angry with Democrats because they're describing the report accurately as the work of the White House, and not General Petraeus.

No kidding. The outrage kicked into gear yesterday when The Washington Times published this piece, which accused Dem leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of seeking to "undermine" Petraeus' credibility by calling the forthcoming assessment the "Bush report."

The piece was linked on Drudge and a bunch of winger bloggers have been running with it, lots of them calling Dems traitors (snore) and worse. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez said that this shows Dems are "dissing Petraeus." Wizbang wrote that this reveals that the "Democrats are so predictable it's sickening." And Ace of Spades accused the Dems of preemptive "spin," asking: "Didn't these guys specifically demand a report from Petraeus in the legislation to continue troop funding?"

Why, yes, Ace, they did pass this legislation. Shall we take a look at the relevant section about the reports? Here were go:

(2) REPORTS REQUIRED-

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress...

(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above....

(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

Got that? The law calls for the President -- you know, Bush -- to prepare the report. Petraeus will offer Congress what's known as testimony. So the "Bush report" is far and away the more accurate way to describe the report, unless Petraeus engineered a military coup and installed himself as President when I wasn't looking.

It gets better. As Think Progress notes, The Washington Times is actually reporting today that according to a senior military official, Petraeus won't even be giving any written testimony at all to the White House in helping it prepare the Bush report, let alone giving any "Petraeus report" to Congress. This comes literally one day after WashTimes whacked the Democrats for their refusal to falsely describe the coming assessment as the "Petraeus report."

Dems aren't trying to "undermine" Petraeus' credibility. They are pointing out that this report's credibility should already be seen as questionable, because, yes, it in fact will be the "Bush report."

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

Broder Says The "Country Will Have To Ponder" Whether Bill Would Be Asset To Hillary Presidency -- But It Already Has
(September 6, 2007 -- 10:43 AM EDT // link // )

One of the more astonishing things about your pundits is their inability to fathom the idea that the American public simply doesn't view the Clinton Presidency -- and Bill Clinton himself -- in anything remotely resembling the same terms that they do.

Really, it's almost as if they desperately hope that the public will reject the Hillary candidacy chiefly because of him. Her victory would mean Bill had succeeded in returning to White House despite the fact that they so disapproved of him and his naughty behavior when he was there the first time. It's almost as if this would be some kind of defeat for them, or something.

Here, for instance, is David Broder today:

But one thing is absolutely clear. Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble. She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder.

But Mr. Broder, the country already has pondered this question, and it's overwhelmingly concluded that this is either a good thing or that it doesn't matter a whit. The only people "pondering" this question right now are pundits like you.

CNN poll:

If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination and goes on to win the general election in 2008, 60 percent of Americans believe her husband would have a positive effect on her administration, while 30 percent think it would be negative.

Gallup poll:

Americans predict Clinton would be an asset as a presidential spouse. By a better than two-to-one margin, 70% vs. 28%, Americans believe he would be more helpful than harmful to his wife's presidency.

USA Today poll:

Do you think the past history and current state of the Clintons’ marriage should or should not matter to voters when they consider voting for Hillary Clinton for president?

Yes, should 23%

No, should not 76%

What's really dispiriting about this vacuous pundit-approved narrative is that there's just nothing that will ever make it go away. Back in 1998, when Broder said this of Bill's White House tenure...

"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."

...Bill Clinton's approval rating hovered in the sixties, and solid majorities said Bill's transgressions didn't matter as long as he ran the country well.

Almost a decade later, nothing has changed. Any day now, the voters are set to start "pondering" just how bad Bill was and how outraged they are about it.

CNN's Kyra Phillips On GAO Report: "Everybody Is Really Wanting To Hear From General Petraeus"
(September 4, 2007 -- 6:22 PM EDT // link // )

Oh, man, this is an unsightly one indeed.

Take a look at this video of CNN's Kyra Phillips reporting today on the big GAO report finding that the Iraqi government has only met three of 18 benchmarks for measuring political progress. Phillips wonders whether this really carries any "weight," and goes on to state as fact that "everybody" is "really wanting" to hear from Petraeus:

Here's what Phillips said:

And also, you mentioned General Petraeus, waiting for his report. He's the man on the ground, really running the show. So does this really hold weight when everybody is really wanting to hear from General Petraeus and what he has to say?

Amusingly, the on-air reporter, Jessica Yellin, then gently lets Phillips in on the fact that she's just slipped into a particularly over-the-top GOP talking point:

YELLIN: Well, that's exactly what the Republican position is here, that General Petraeus really is the driving force here. And Democrats will acknowledge that, as well.

But the GAO report does give a balancing force, if you will, because it's done by an independent branch of Congress. They're investigators. And so you can say there is absolutely no political interference. That's the position some will take.

Actually, lots of Dems wouldn't concede that Petraeus is the only driving force here, but at least the reporter explained the merits of the GAO report to Phillips and her viewers.

Look, this is serious business, kiddies. The GOP is desperate to undercut this thing because it threatens to overshadow the Gospel According to Petraeus. So the Republicans' spin today is that the GAO report's methodology is flawed and that nobody will grant this nonpartisan, Congressionally-mandated report the level of credibility that they'll grant General Petraeus' assessment...of his own performance.

This despite the fact that Republicans themselves overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq supplemental spending bill that mandated this GAO report and mandated that it hold the Iraqis to strict benchmarks.

Gotta hope that the coverage and punditry on this tomorrow gives readers and viewers at least a bit of this key context, rather than telling the story exactly the way the GOP wants it told by reflexively assuming that "everybody" will automatically grant Petraeus' report greater weight and cred. Gotta hope.

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

New York Times Gives Michael O'Hanlon Opportunity To Publish More Questionable Iraq Assertions
(September 4, 2007 -- 10:30 AM EDT // link // )

So the editors of The New York Times have given the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon an opportunity to publish yet another piece today touting his claim that the surge is showing signs of military success.

Times readers are surely grateful to the paper for doing this, since many of them have probably forgotten the views on this matter O'Hanlon expressed on the paper's Op-ed page just over a month ago, and they probably needed a refresher.

At any rate, in The O'Hanlon Times today, O'Hanlon concedes "political paralysis" in Iraq. This is more forthright than the assessment offered in his earlier effort, which basically sidestepped the political question entirely. And he does allow that "Iraq is not now on a trajectory toward sustainable stability," which appears to be a euphemism that means, "we're failing in our mission."

Nonetheless, O'Hanlon again argues that the surge is showing military success -- or "military momentum," as he puts it. His evidence, which is included in an accompanying chart, is "culled from official Iraqi and American sources and press reports," he tells us.

But O'Hanlon doesn't tell his readers what these sources and press reports are, so they have no way of gauging the accuracy of his claims. O'Hanlon writes:

Overall, civilian fatality rates are down perhaps one third since late 2006, though they remain quite high. There are also signs that roughly six of Iraq’s 18 provinces are making significant economic and security gains, up from three a year ago. The story in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province is by now well known: attacks in the city of Ramadi are down 90 percent, and the economy is recovering. But there is progress in several regions with more complex sectarian mixes as well.

O'Hanlon's claim that "civilian fatality rates are down perhaps one third since late 2006," is an intriguing one. Because the data he provides in the piece's accompanying chart (which contains no specific sourcing) doesn't support it. Rather, the only data he provides on civilian fatalities says that "Iraqi civilian deaths" fell from 3,000 in August 2006 to 2,500 last month. That's a decline of one-sixth, not one-third. And at any rate, August 2006 is not "late 2006." O'Hanlon provides no other data on this question, so we have no way at all of evaluating his claim.

As for the unnamed "press reports" he "culled" this data from, presumably they don't include this one from the Los Angeles Times, or this one from the Associated Press, or this one from The New York Times, all of which reported that civilian fatalities are up across Iraq.

And as for the six other provinces where "significant economic and security gains" are being made, O'Hanlon doesn't provide specifics. While the accompanying chart does contain a few stats claiming scattered categories of general improvement (though again with no sourcing whatsoever), there are no specific stats or evidence to back up his rather sweeping claim.

Finally, it's worth noting that The O'Hanlon Times billed this latest piece as an "update." This presumably is meant to explain why the paper is granting him its prized Op-ed platform yet again, at precisely the moment when the PR efforts of the White House and war supporters are about to crank up into overdrive. (editor's note -- see update below.)

But billing this as an "update" has the unfortunate effect of making it sound as if O'Hanlon is some kind of disinterested observer, who's merely sharing the latest objective data, rather than someone who advocated relentlessly for both the invasion and the surge and is about as far from a disinterested observer as one can be.

But hey, at least he wasn't allowed to describe himself as a war "critic" this time.

*****************************************************************************

Update: This is much worse than I originally thought. Blogger Moon of Alabama points out that this isn't really an Op-ed in the technical sense, but a regular recurring feature in The Times where O'Hanlon provides a quarterly "update" for on the Op-ed page, complete with chart. So I was wrong to speculate on the Times's motives for billing this an "update." I've made a few corrections to the above to reflect this.

But these "updates" do amount to Op-ed pieces, complete with "Op-charts," as the paper bills them. And the larger point -- that this "update" conveys the impression that this is the work of a disinterested observer providing readers with objective data -- becomes far more obvious if you scroll through all of O'Hanlon's past updates. It also raises anew the question of why the paper offered him the chance to pen an Op-ed proclaiming the war winnable when he's had regular access to its pages for so long -- and when he's being regularly presented by the paper as a kind of Oracle of Objective Knowledge about Iraq. I mean, is there an O'Hanlon saturation point? How much O'Hanlon is too much O'Hanlon?

That these are regular, of course, doesn't change the fact that today's was at odds with his own stats and wasn't sourced in any way -- this, right as the big debate kicks into high gear. Meanwhile, Moon of Alabama makes the case that these "updates" have been regularly misleading right here.

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

Why Was Petraeus Able To Shift The Debate On Iraq? The Media Enabled It
(September 2, 2007 -- 9:12 AM EDT // link // )

So who's to blame for the fact that General Petraeus' aggressive PR surge is showing signs of success in advance of the September showdown between the White House and Congress over Iraq?

Kevin Drum has a provocative post up in which he concludes that the liberal blogosphere and liberal establishment were badly "outplayed" by Petraeus' PR "blitzkrieg." Kevin reaches this sobering conclusion: "Even though there's been no discernible political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn't matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality."

Meanwhile, Atrios adds that part of the blame lies with our elected leaders, who "have chosen to play along."

Without discounting any of these conclusions, I think it's necessary to add another explanation for the apparent success of Petraeus' PR push: The media, in some cases out of incompetence and in others by design, helped him get away with it, and indeed actively enabled it.

If you step back and survey the totality of media's performance this summer on the Iraq debate, it becomes a good deal clearer just how awful it's all been -- and just how complicit these failings were in helping to shift the debate:

(1) Big news orgs repeatedly twisted the words of Democrats who had returned from Iraq to make their assessments sound more positive than they were.

This has happened again and again in recent weeks. When Democratic Senator Carl Levin came back from Iraq and said that the escalation was showing measurable results but has "totally and utterly failed" to reach its goal of political reconciliation in Iraq, big news orgs repeatedly spun Levin's words to make it sound as if he were saying that the surge was succeeding, when he wasn't.

And when Hillary Clinton claimed in a recent speech that various tactical changes in Al Anbar province were showing results, news outlets reported again and again and again and again that she'd said the "surge" was "working," when that isn't what she'd said at all.

Continue reading "Why Was Petraeus Able To Shift The Debate On Iraq? The Media Enabled It"