 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
"News" from the New York Times:
The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq ProgressNow I looked, but I can't find any news there.WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.
But then again, I was paying attention in the early days of the surge. (January, within days of the announcement.) Back then reporters wanted to know from (then-MNF-I commander) General Casey exactly when they could call the operation a failure. Short version:
"What's your thinking about how long these additional troops will need to stay here?"
"It will be late summer before we see some results to cause us to make decisions."
But the headlines the next day read: "General: Some Troops Heading To Iraq Could Be Home In Months"
In reality (if not in the "reality based community") in spite of the passage of time Casey's comments are consistent with General Petraeus' this week:
Q: ...And secondly, your recommendations in September, are you willing to countenance the idea that you may have to say to the president, this is not working, we should pull troops out, or are you more likely to say things are not going well, here are the adjustments and strategies we need to make?So there's no news in that "late summer bit". (And note there's been no promise by either man of victory by that date. That will change in the September news - just watch.)GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, on the latter one, I mean, I have an obligation to some wonderful young men and women in uniform, and a lot of civilians, by the way, who are serving in Iraq and who deserve a forthright assessment from the folks at the top about the situation on the ground, and that's what I'm going to provide.
2008?
Back in March, unnamed "military officials" leaked this story...
The day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened U.S. troop levels in Iraq be extended through February 2008, military officials said.... to the New York Times.
<...>
Military officials said Wednesday that Odierno had provided his assessment to his superior, General David Petraeus, who took over as the top commander in Iraq earlier this year.
Who in today's "news" claim:
In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.But I guess New York Times reporters don't read the New York Times.
What we'll get in September will be another candid assessment from General Petraeus (it will be ignored or distorted - as this week's was) of progress of an ongoing process - along with recommendations on how to go forward from there. To predict more would be folly. But I do predict "some" will claim anything less than a declaration of "total victory" (and that declaration won't happen) is defeat.
As noted, reporters want a "date certain" they can declare failure, and will gleefully do so once that assessment date arrives. By pretending they are "news" (or an "extension") each time such dates are noted will ensure maximum attention, and ignoring what is really said will enable the media to pretend they said something completely different when the time comes. Amazing what you can accomplish by flat out lying about what people say and when they say it.
But it's not surprising that the Ignoratti believe what they're told. (More here.)
