Finally! CNN Does Solid Two-Minute Segment On "Small Price" Boehner
(September 14, 2007 -- 6:25 PM EDT // link // )
Okay, this counts as real movement.
Two days ago CNN aired the now-infamous "small price" comment from John Boehner. The network didn't really understand what it had, and so, even though the Dems raised holy heck yesterday and attacked Boehner's remark, CNN didn't air any follow-up on it at all -- in stark contrast to the tons of attention it gave John Kerry's botched troop joke last October.
Now the yelling about this has grown too loud for CNN to ignore. And to the network's credit it has done a solid two-minute segment hitting Boehner for the comment. It's really worth a watch:
The report did a very good job of making it ultra clear that Boehner was responding to a question about troop deaths, and not just money, as the Boehner camp is spinning it. And the network gave credit to bloggers for highlighting the importance of the story that CNN broke without initially appreciating its import. Most fun of all, the report kept the words "small price" on the screen for the entire segment.
I'm still sticking to my prediction that this will end up getting nowhere near the attention that John Kerry's botched troop joke got. But this is good.
Fun Times: Let's Compare Coverage Of Kerry Troop Joke With That Of Boehner
(September 14, 2007 -- 2:02 PM EDT // link // )
I noted yesterday that it's become something of a cliche to point to a Republican gaffe and say, "Imagine the media outcry if a Democrat did that." But in this case the point really does need to be hammered home. What you've got here -- yet again -- is that same old unsightly double standard that the big news orgs reflexively adopt when covering "gaffes" committed by Democrats and Republicans, particularly ones involving military issues.
The evidence of this is just overwhelming at this point. And it's a really big deal. It's not even too much of a stretch to say that this media failing among others is one reason we're in Iraq today, since it helped prevent Al Gore from winning the election by enough votes to render his victory theft-proof. There's been a bit of acknowledgment of this problem within the industry of late. But there's never been a full-scale reckoning with it. The denial about it just runs too deep.
And Boehner's remark offers a perfect chance to marvel at this anew. Here's how: We can compare coverage of it to John Kerry's botched joke in October 2006. The missteps are very similar: Both denigrated the troops; both Kerry and Boehner are peripheral players to the main current political event; both made remarks that are ambiguous and could be read as a mistake; and both came under fire from members of the opposition party.
So let's compare the coverage. Kerry made his botched joke on October 30, 2006. Here's a partial list of news orgs that covered this, often as stand alone stories, in the two days following:
CNNThere hasn't been anything remotely like this by the big news orgs in the days since Boehner's remark. There was a paragraph at the end of a Times story, a Caucus blog item, a one sentence mention in USA Today that didn't even frame the remark as controversial, a blog item in The Politico, a UPI story, and a spot by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Nothing on the nets or wires or in most major papers. I'm talking here about big news orgs, not local news outlets or blogs. If you find anything else, let us know, and we'll post it.Fox News
ABC News
MSNBC
NBC News
ABC News
CBS News
CNBC News
Associated Press
McClatchy
PBS - News Hour With Jim Lehrer
The Boston Globe
The Chicago Tribune
The Washington Post
The Washington Times
The New York Times
The New York Post
The Los Angeles Times
USA Today
Why is this?
The answer is simple: Kerry is a Democrat, and Boehner is a Republican.
I don't mean that to sound cavalier. But if you unpack it, it really is pretty much the case. Judging by the news product we see on a daily basis, the way the press approaches Dems and the military is two-fold. Dems are either presumed to be genuinely anti-military by instinct, or, more likely, they're presumed to be vulnerable to Republican charges that they're anti-military. Sure, this is a generalization, and there are plenty of exceptions. But those are the basics.
Point is, those are the prefabricated storylines that are tacitly -- and often overtly -- used as the guideposts by which decisions are made as to whether things like the Kerry botched joke gaffe or Boehner's remark are news. Kerry screwed up a joke. Why is that a huge story? Because it reinforces perceptions that Dems are anti-military, and gives Republicans an opening to score some points. That's what makes Kerry's thing a "gaffe" -- and, perversely, what turns it into news.
There just isn't any such pre-fabricated storyline on the Republican side. So a line like Boehner's is merely confusing, about as perceptible to the press as radio static. Boehner said that troop deaths are a "small price" to pay for realizing Bush's vision in the Middle East? Why, he couldn't possibly have meant it. Or, alternatively, Republicans aren't vulnerable to charges that they're anti-military. Therefore, this doesn't really qualify as a "gaffe" -- and therefore isn't really news.
Who knows -- maybe we'll see lots more coverage of this, now that the very serious and respected John McCain and Joe Biden have said that what Boehner did is a bad thing. But there's simply no chance that it will earn anywhere near the attention that Kerry's "gaffe" did.
Update: Steve Benen compellingly lays out the case here.
Big News Orgs Start Picking Up Boehner "Small Price" Remark. But...
(September 14, 2007 -- 10:28 AM EDT // link // )
Okay, so Boehner's remark a few days back -- that the loss of troops in Iraq is a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda -- is starting to gain a bit of traction with the big news orgs.
Unfortunately, the early coverage of it has been pretty dismal, either thoroughly lacking in context or letting Boehner skate with a bogus explanation for the reprehensible remark.
The most embarrassing performance was turned in by USA Today. Here's what the paper wrote today about it:
Speaking from Iraq, while leading a congressional delegation, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told CNN U.S. forces are having success. He argued "the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al-Qaeda here."...and that's it. No mention of the fact that this was a controversial remark. No mention of the fact that Boehner had said this in response to a question about troop losses. No mention of the multiple Democrats who condemned the remark yesterday.
To its credit, today's New York Times did frame Boehner's remarks as controversial. The paper wrote:
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, on his way back from a two-day trip to Iraq, continued to herald signs of success he saw. But Mr. Boehner himself became part of the bitter debate over Iraq, saying in response to a question posed on CNN that “the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop Al Qaeda here.”The problem here is that the Times didn't report the fact that Boehner had said this in response to a question about not just the financial cost of the war, but also about troop deaths. Result: The pushback by Boehner's aides -- "that he referred only to the financial costs" -- sounds perfectly reasonable, whereas if you look at the whole exchange it's obvious that the explanation is totally bogus.Democrats seized on the remark, accusing him of demeaning the death toll in Iraq, which as of Wednesday stood at 3,765, though aides said he referred only to the financial costs.
By contrast, The Politico's John Bresnanan, to his credit, posted the full transcript. Thus, readers could understand what actually happened.
The best coverage of the sorry episode was done by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. He made it completely clear that Boehner was answering a question about troop deaths, and even fact-checked the ridiculous premise of Boehner's assertions, pointing out that our Iraq policies are doing nothing to defeat Al Qaeda or to stabilize the Middle East. Enjoy:
Meanwhile, no coverage in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, or on any of the major networks today, according to Nexis. But more on that in a bit.
Why Boehner's "Small Price" Troop Deaths Comment Matters
(September 13, 2007 -- 10:38 AM EDT // link // )
I didn't do a good enough job yesterday explaining why the comment I flagged below that House leader John Boehner made yesterday -- that troop deaths in Iraq are a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda -- is important and could be a big story. So let me take another crack at it.
First, let's rerun the tape:
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?Now, the key here is that Boehner was very specifically answering a question about troop deaths, or at least a question that was partly about troop deaths. And his answer was that the untold number of dead Americans that will result from the war would be a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda long term and indeed in exchange for achieving the rather far-fetched goal of "stabilizing the Middle East."BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
You can try to read Boehner's comment another way. You can look at the fact that he referred to the "investment" we are making, and argue that he was only referring to treasure, not blood. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to read the comment as a reference to American lives, too. At the very least, it's a point he can be pressed to clarify. But again, it's perfectly reasonable to assume here that Boehner actually believes that untold American dead -- and untold is the right word -- would be a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda and achieving Middle East stability.
Looked at that way, there's really no way around the fact that this is a reprehensible comment, and one Dems and others should demand that Boehner answer for. After all, the loss of an American soldier is never a small price for the soldier's parents, relatives and friends -- no matter what is achieved. Even if the U.S. military succeeded in turning the entire Middle East into a giant Woodstock festival, it wouldn't come at a "small price" for many -- it would come at the ultimate price.
It's become something of a cliche to point out that "if a Dem had done this, then there would be tons of attention..." etc., etc. But in this case, it's apt. Really, just imagine the outpouring of outrage on the cable channels and from pundits there would be if, say, John Kerry had said such a thing. Chris Matthews would be bouncing off the walls of his padded cell, and David Broder's computer screen would be covered with spittle flecks.
But as Kos notes today, not a single big news org (aside from CNN, which initially reported the remark) or pundit has murmured a word about it.
The reason for this disparity, however, doesn't reside just within the media. Recall what happened last fall with Kerry's botched troop joke. In less than a day, virtually every Republican in public life was condemning the remark in every conceivable forum. And Kerry's gaffe was obviously a screwed up gag, whereas there's very good reason to believe that Boehner meant his remark in exactly the way it came across. A very similar Republican message eruption happened with the MoveOn ad blasting General Petraeus the other day. In both cases, the media responded in kind.
By contrast, only a single Dem -- John Kerry -- has stepped forward to condemn Boehner. We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment. But thus far, there's virtual silence. This is astonishing -- particularly because Boehner's remark captures rather nicely what's going on with the war debate. Boehner, like the White House and most Republicans, is willing to sink an untold number of American lives into the pursuit of the fantasy of a stable Middle East and into the illusion that civilization as we know it will come to an end if we don't defeat the ever omnipotent Al Qaeda.
Is there even the slightest doubt that the Repubs would have cranked up the message machine in a big way had a Dem made this "small price" remark? No, there isn't.
Bottom line: It's hard to see what Boehner said as anything but reprehensible. And his remarks could become a big story, if Dems wanted to make it one.
GOP Leader Boehner: If We Defeat Al Qaeda, "We" Will Have Paid "A Small Price" In Iraq
(September 12, 2007 -- 4:18 PM EDT // link // )
Okay, if this isn't portrayed as a major gaffe, with wall-to-wall condemnations from the pundits, it'll be stunning. (Editor's note: That was meant to be bitterly ironic.)
I've just received some advance excerpts of an interview CNN's Wolf Blitzer has done with GOP House leader John Boehner. It's set to air this afternoon. Take a look at this chunk:
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?Note that Boehner is specifically answering a question about troop deaths here -- which he calls a "small price," should we win the war.BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
This is an obvious point, but it bears making again, anyway: It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to...
(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal
...while simultaneously...
(b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.
Also, it bears pointing out that Boehner's overall thought here -- that we'll have made a small sacrifice "if we're able to stabilize the Middle East"-- is a pretty big "if." Of course, if you're not really sacrificing anything in the quest to realize this big "if," then there's not much to be lost in going for it even if it is a real long shot, now is there.
Video soon.
Late Update: Here's the video:
Mom Of One Of Dead Soldiers Who Penned Critical Op-Ed Speaks Out
(September 12, 2007 -- 10:20 AM EDT // link // )
Greg Mitchell notes that the Galveston County Daily News, a small paper in Texas, has an interview today with the mother of Omar Mora, one of the soldiers who died in Iraq yesterday after penning that riveting Times Op ed last month expressing pessimism about the war.
Mora's mom, Olga Capetillo, confirms that he co-wrote the piece and adds some wrenching detail to the story in her interview with the little paper.
For instance, Mora's 15-month deployment was nearing its end. His tour of duty was marked with some horrific moments:
The Capetillos last saw their son in April, when he was on leave after a roadside bomb damaged his ears and left one of his friends without an arm. He eventually redeployed, and in August saw another friend shot in the head, a wound that later killed him, the Capetillos said.Mora apparently undertook to write the Op-ed out of despair with the way things were going in Iraq:
Olga Capetillo said that by the time Mora submitted the editorial, he had grown increasingly depressed.Mora also felt that the Op-ed had been misunderstood as a call for withdrawal by some antiwar people, though in the Op-ed he and his fellow soldiers wrote that the war had become the "pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends."“I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home,” she said. “But yesterday is the darkest day for me.”
Mora knew his mission was "absurd" -- until his commitment to seeing it through, come what may, killed him. Meanwhile, the likes of Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are back in air-conditioned Washington think tank offices, arguing that we must nonetheless pursue it indefinitely, even if it will cost the lives of an untold number of Moras to come.
Still, failure in Iraq must be averted at all costs. A lot of very precious reputations are at stake.
Two Of Soldiers Who Penned Times Op-Ed Criticizing War Appear To Have Died
(September 12, 2007 -- 8:06 AM EDT // link // )
It appears that two of the soldiers who helped co-write a riveting New York Times Op-ed last month criticizing U.S. war strategy in Iraq have now died.
The two soldiers are Staff Sergeant Yance Gray and Sergeant Omar Mora. Those are the names of two of seven soldiers who co-wrote the Op-ed, which described the political debate in Washington as "surreal," opining that "to believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched."
Now a local Texas station is reporting that Mora was killed Monday in a vehicle rollover accident that killed seven troops.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Gray died in the same accident.
I've got a call into the Pentagon press office seeking confirmation that these two are the same soldiers that wrote the Op-ed. Over at Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell says that they are the same, as does a diarist over at Daily Kos.
Back when the soldiers' courageous Op-ed appeared, it received scant media attention -- far less, for instance, than an Op-ed by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack arguing that the surge is working.
In their Op-ed, the soldiers wrote that despite their grave misgivings about the war strategy's likelihood for success, "as committed soldiers, we will see this mission through." Now, even as the likes of O'Hanlon and Pollack continue to argue in Washington that the surge is working, and even as the "surreal" Washington political debate the soldiers described continues, the two men's commitment to the mission has cost them their lives.
Politico Falsely Reports That Skelton Distanced Himself From MoveOn
(September 11, 2007 -- 8:45 PM EDT // link // )
The Politico has a story today claiming that MoveOn's ad attacking General Petraeus yesterday threw the Dems "off stride" and gave a big boost to Republican efforts to paint the party as antimilitary.
To bolster this point, Politico includes this anecdote about Dem Rep. Ike Skelton:
In an expression of his own alarm, when the hearing started, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat in charge of the proceedings, distanced himself from MoveOn’s claims, calling Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker “two of America’s finest.”There's only one problem with this assertion that out of "alarm" Skelton "distanced himself" from MoveOn when the hearing started yesterday: It never happened.Skelton directed his criticism instead at the general’s predecessors at the Pentagon for failing to employ an effective strategy during the first three years of the Iraq conflict...
But Skelton’s efforts at damage control failed to satisfy Republicans.
I just went through a transcript of Skelton's opening statement, which is where these Politico quotes are taken from. Ironically, you can read it right here on the Politico's Crypt blog. And nowhere in it do you find a mention of "MoveOn."
Yes, Skelton praised the two men. But to say Skelton's praise was mere "damage control" undertaken out of "alarm" is an enormous stretch, particularly since he never brought up the ad. After all, Skelton has praised Petraeus in similar terms in the past -- before the MoveOn ad.
What's really unsightly about this is the implication that Skelton's real motive for praising Petraeus and Crocker wasn't that he was being sincere, but that he was worried about MoveOn and distancing himself from it. Skelton's praise of them was nothing but "damage control," we're told.
This is a very sloppy screwup in service of the larger chosen narrative here -- that Republicans would automatically gain from this, and that Dems would automatically be thrown on the defensive by it. This is of course because voters are automatically susceptible, by instinct, to the GOP message that Dems are anti-military.
This little screwup is symptomatic of something larger: A developing media and pundit narrative which has it that the alleged gains of the "surge" and the gleam of Petraeus' medals have made it inevitable that public opinion will shift on Iraq and that the Dems will inevitably revert to a defensive crouch while the GOP is already basking in the confidence of inevitable success.
Look, who knows what Dems will end up doing, but the picture is much more complex and fluid than this. What always puzzles me is this bizarre eagerness to report the story this way, even to the point of concocting anecdotes out of nothing to support it.
Update: This piece in The New York Times demonstrates pretty clearly just how uncertain the political situation is right now by quoting numerous key Republicans saying that despite Petraeus' testimony, they will still pursue a shift of mission in Iraq.
Finally! New York Times Says It: Rudy Is Exploiting 9/11
(September 11, 2007 -- 12:01 PM EDT // link // )
This is as good a day as any other to hit on this again.
Awhile back this blog ranted endlessly about the fact that Rudy's ongoing exploitation of 9/11 had yet to enter the media narrative of this Presidential race. I wondered why pundits were so reluctant to see Rudy's constant dissembling about his Masterfully Churchillian Performance that day as a clue to the man's character, when the most trivial of gaffes are immediately taken as emblematic of massive character flaws on the part of Dem candidates (see Haircut, $400).
Now, however, there's reason for cheer. The New York Times has come as close as possible, in a reported "Political Memo" piece, to saying the unsayable about Rudy: He's trying to ride his 9/11 magic carpet right into the White House. Check out this priceless lede by Times reporter Marc Santora:
ORLANDO, Fla., Sept 7 — During a Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, Rudolph W. Giuliani asserted, “The reality is that I’m not running on what I did on Sept. 11.”Ahhhhh. So good. Don't you just love the idea that Presidential candidate Rudy is speaking about 9/11 from a stage containing a picture of someone jumping out a tower window?Two days later, a crowd of nearly 1,000 filed into a ballroom here for a 9/11 Remembrance Luncheon. Graphic images of the exploding towers, dust-covered survivors and even a series of photos that showed someone leaping from a tower were flashed on two giant screens flanking the stage where Mr. Giuliani was about to speak.
“America must never forget the lessons of Sept. 11,” Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, later told the crowd.
The piece notes that while Rudy had been trying to appear restrained in talking about the disaster, he's now taken to talking in hushed tones to audiences about seeing people jump out of the towers. It drolly adds that he recently "offered a justification for speaking of the attacks often, saying it was important to keep the lessons in mind."
It's worth noting that this justification -- that Rudy wants to make sure that we don't forget the "lessons" of 9/11, as opposed to forgetting his performance that day -- has become a stock justification for his constant references to the tragedy. Here, for instance, is Rudy in a recent interview:
"For me every day is an anniversary of Sept. 11," Giuliani said after reviewing emergency response equipment at the Pinellas Sheriff's Office with Attorney General Bill McCollum and Sheriff Jim Coats. "If we don't talk about Sept. 11, you can't prepare to try to avoid another Sept. 11."It's also worth noting that there are two types of stories out there about Rudy and 9/11. There's the above Times piece, which hints at Rudy's exploitation of the disaster. Then there are also ones like this Reuters piece, which basically says that running on 9/11 is a risk for Rudy, because it exposes his actual record to more scrutiny. Such pieces typically present Rudy's relationship to 9/11 as hinging on a substantive disagreement about his performance, and this latter type of analysis is what we hear most often from pundits these days. But the reality is that it's the former type of piece that really gets at the central truth about his candidacy. Props to The Times for taking a stab at it.
Now, if only we could get our haircut-obsessive pundits to start seeing Rudy in these terms.
Flashback: Westmoreland's Optimistic Testimony About Vietnam War Progress In 1967
(September 10, 2007 -- 5:21 PM EDT // link // )
In anticipation of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress today, many analysts were comparing his appearance to a similar speech made before Congress by another General a generation ago -- William Westmoreland, who spoke on April 28, 1967, to assuage deep public doubts about the Vietnam War.
Even Bush himself has encouraged broader comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam when it has suited him.
We dug up Westmoreland's actual speech about the Vietnam War that day in 1967. You can read it here, in the New York Times's archives (sub. required). Here's a key excerpt:
Given the nature of the enemy, it seems to me that the strategy that we are following at this time is the proper one, and that is producing results. While he is obviously is far from quitting, there are signs that his morale and his military structure are beginning to deteriorate. The rate of decline will be in proportion to the pressure directed against him....After rattling off a bunch more such stats designed to show progress, Westmoreland continued by highlighting the need to show the enemy our resolve and by praising the military as being at its best in the nation's history:As you know, we are fighting a war with no front lines, since the enemy hides among the people, in the jungles and mountains, and uses covertly border areas of neutral countries. One cannot measure progress by lines on a map. We therefore have to use other means to chart progress. Several indices clearly point to steady and encouraging success. As an example:
Two years ago the Republic of Vietnam had fewer than 30 combat-ready battalions. Today it has 154.
Then there were three jet-capable runways in South Vietnam. Today there are 14.
As I have said before, in evaluating the enemy strategy it is evident to me that he elieves our Achilles' heel is our resolve. Your continued strong support is vital to the success of our mission..Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen are the finest ever fielded by our Nation....Those men understand the conflict and their complex roles as fighters and as builders. They believe in what they are doing. They are determined to provide the shield of security behind which the Republic of Vietnam can develop and prosper for its own sake and for the future and freedom of all Southeast Asia.
Backed at home by resolve, confidence, patience, determination, and continued support, we will prevail in Vietnam over the Communist aggressor.
Here's a chart of American deaths in Vietnam:
| Year | American Deaths |
| 1956-1960 | 9 |
| 1961 | 16 |
| 1962 | 52 |
| 1963 | 118 |
| 1964 | 206 |
| 1965 | 1,863 |
| 1966 | 6,143 |
| 1967 | 11,153 |
| 1968 | 16,592 |
| 1969 | 11,616 |
| 1970 | 6,081 |
| 1971 | 2,357 |
| 1972 | 641 |
| 1973 | 168 |
| 1974 | 178 |
| 1975 | 161 |
In the seven or so years between Westmoreland's speech and the end of the war, over 35,000 Americans died in Vietnam.
Republican National Committee Using Lieberman Quotes To Bash Dems
(September 10, 2007 -- 11:46 AM EDT // link // )
You probably don't need any more proof at this point that Joe Lieberman is tacitly acting in collusion with Republicans to hurt the Democratic Party, but this is a good one.
The Republican National Committee has just sent out a blast email using not one, but two Lieberman quotes from Lieberman press releases to bash Dems. In both, Lieberman calls on Democratic leaders to condemn MoveOn for "attacking" Mighty Scholar Warrior David Petraeus. The antiwar group ran an ad today describing him as "General Betray-us."
Here's the RNC's release:
They Said It!Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) On MoveOn.org's Attack Ad Against General David Petraeus
Lieberman: "The Personal Attack On Gen. David Petraeus Launched Today By Moveon.org Is An Outrageous And Despicable Act Of Slander That Every Member Of The Congress -- Democrat And Republican -- Has A Solemn Responsibility To Condemn." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, "Lieberman Urges Leader Reid And Speaker Pelosi To Denounce Moveon.org Attack On General Petraeus," Press Release, 9/10/07)
Lieberman: "As A Member Of The Senate Democratic Caucus, I Therefore Call On Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid And Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi To Denounce Moveon.org In No Uncertain Terms For Its Vile Attack On Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus Deserves No Less." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, "Lieberman Urges Leader Reid And Speaker Pelosi To Denounce Moveon.org Attack On General Petraeus," Press Release, 9/10/07)
Some fun things to note here. First, check out how the RNC misleadingly identifies Lieberman as a Democrat from Connecticut, in order to snooker the rubes into seeing Lieberman's quotes as somehow counterintuitive.
Second, by using the MoveOn brush to tar the Democratic Party, Lieberman is wielding a time-tested tool from the GOP arsenal. In the current context, multiple Republicans have been using MoveOn's criticism of Petraeus as a way of painting the Dem Congressional leadership as anti-military. Here, Lieberman has done the Republicans the favor of putting this same mumbo-jumbo in the mouth of a "Democrat." And the GOP, unsurprisingly, is running with it.
Senator, the Republican National Committee thanks you for your unflaggingly loyal service.
Poll: Majority Of Iraqis Say Surge Isn't Working
(September 10, 2007 -- 8:07 AM EDT // link // )
Silly Iraqis. Why don't they understand just how great "scholar-warrior" Petraeus has been for them?
Poll Highlights Disconnect Between U.S. Commanders, IraqisOkay, so let's do an unofficial tally.BAGHDAD, Sept. 10 -- Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe that the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas, while nearly as many say their own lives are going badly, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.
The poll reveals a disconnect between U.S. commanders' view of a steadily improving situation in Iraq and a bleaker outlook among Iraqis. As Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker prepare to testify before Congress on Monday and Tuesday about the results of the troop increase, poll numbers show that ordinary Iraqis are significantly more likely to say "things are going badly" than in the early days of the increased military presence in March...
Six out of 10 people believe that security is worse in Iraq than six months ago, while just 11 percent believe security has improved...Iraqis' perception of the security situation appears to conflict with official military data showing a decline in the number of violent incidents across the country.
In the "surge is working" corner:
Surge implementer General PetraeusIn the "surge is not working" or "there's no evidence surge is working" corner:Surge orderer President Bush
Vocal surge supporter Michael O'Hanlon
Vocal surge supporter Kenneth Pollack
Vocal surge supporter Bill Kristol
Times reporter Michael Gordon
The majority of the American peopleLike I said, an unofficial tally. Still, it should certainly tell us something.The vast majority of the Iraqi people
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
The intelligence-services-written National Intelligence Estimate
Petraeus superior Admiral Fallon
Other experts in and out of government
Times reporter who isn't Michael Gordon