Tag Archives: iraq

Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

Posted on September 2, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

A recurring rubric at James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today column at the Wall Street Journal online, is “We Blame George W. Bush,” for tongue-in-cheek examples of the former prez being blamed for things palpably beyond his purview.  Let’s add another one to the list.  Dem senator Russ Feingold has blamed his tough re-election race on, yes, W. Let’s think about that. If Bush were such a bad president.  If his policies were so disastrous for the country. Wouldn’t that boost the chances of an incumbent Dem senator who, like Feingold, had voted against Bush policies every step along the way? Hey, I don’t try to understand Dem logic: I just report it.  Feingold made his logic-defying allegation on this evening’s Ed Show. ED SCHULTZ: Even the progressive Russ Feingold is in a real tough fight for his seat in Wisconsin.  Senator Feingold is a progressive—as progressive as you can get— he voted against the Iraq war, he voted against the Patriot Act, he voted against the Wall Street bailouts; all very strong progressive positions. But somehow we’ve gotten to the point where the less a candidate knows about Washington it seems the better off they are, and now Feingold, a guy who has always fought the good liberal fight is up against a candidate who is trying to buy the election so he can go to Washington and extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Senator Russ Feingold joins us tonight, here on the Ed Show. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.  You know, you have been one of the most hard-working guys out there.  You do over 70 town hall meetings a year.  What are you hearing in Wisconsin? And why are you polling below 50%? RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, this is a year of challenges because of the mess that was left us from the Bush years. Wait a second! If Bush were so awful, and you fought Bush every step of the way as Ed documented, wouldn’t that make you a winner in Wisconsin?  Could it possibly be that, now under Obama and a Dem congress, W [to quote those old Cross Your Heart commercials] is looking “suddenly shaplier”?

Excerpt from:
Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USAToday.com Notes Poll Showing Bush Blamed for Economy, Skips One Showing Voters Favor GOP On Issues

Posted on September 2, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Yesterday the Gallup organization released a poll showing that Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on most major issues heading into the general election season. Today the same polling outfit released a poll that found a large number of Americans blame George W. Bush for the faltering economy.  Guess which one Gallup partner USA Today hyped? Here’s how USA Today staffer Susan Page began her September 2 online story (filed at noon today): Nearly two years after Barack Obama was elected president, Americans still are inclined to blame his predecessor for the nation’s current economic problems. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility. The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009. A search of the USAToday.com website failed to turn up a story specifically devoted to the September 1 Gallup poll that gauged voter preferences for the parties based on the issues. Staffer Susan Page did make a brief reference to the poll in a September 1 “analysis” article regarding President Obama’s Oval Office speech about the end of combat operations in Iraq, but that occurred in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her 20-paragraph story: But the Iraq war is no longer the driving issue for Americans facing job layoffs and home foreclosures. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,021 adults Friday through Sunday, those surveyed rated the economy, jobs, government corruption and federal spending as the top issues shaping their vote in November’s congressional elections — and preferred congressional Republicans over Democrats on handling the economy by double digits. The war in Afghanistan ranked eighth in a list of nine issues. Here’s an excerpt from Gallup.com’s website regarding the top issues poll: PRINCETON, NJ — A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling seven of nine key election issues. The parties are essentially tied on healthcare, with the environment being the lone Democratic strength. The Republicans’ advantage on most issues is an indication of the currently favorable political environment for the party. Of particular note is the parity between the two parties on healthcare, an issue on which Americans historically have viewed the Democrats as superior . A similar USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October 2006, just prior to Democrats’ major gains in that fall’s elections, highlights the potential implications of these findings. That poll, which includes several issues measured in the current survey, found the Democrats leading on all eight issues tested at that time , including some usual Republican strengths like terrorism and moral values. In more bad news for liberal Democrats, Gallup.com released another poll today that shows that “Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout Measure” : PRINCETON, NJ — Two months before this year’s midterm congressional elections, Gallup finds 54% of Republicans, compared with 30% of Democrats, already saying they have given “quite a lot of” or “some” thought to the contests. This “thought” measure is an important variable in Gallup’s well-established classification of “likely voters,” which is put into use closer to Election Day. The current gulf in thought between the parties mirrors the partisan gap in Gallup’s voter enthusiasm measure that is tracked weekly. We’ll have to see how USA Today covers this later today or tomorrow, but I’m not holding my breath for the paper giving it much attention, if any.

Link:
USAToday.com Notes Poll Showing Bush Blamed for Economy, Skips One Showing Voters Favor GOP On Issues

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

Posted on September 1, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith served as an apologist for President Obama, who failed to credit President George W. Bush with the Iraq troop surge in an Oval Office address Tuesday night: “…while he [Obama] did not acknowledge…President Bush’s support for the surge….he at least gave it tacit agreement – approval. And he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan.” Smith made the defense during an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain, who took the President to task for opposing the 2007 troop surge: “…it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it.” After Smith claimed that Obama “had a year and a half to rescind” his opposition to the surge and eventually gave “tacit agreement” to it, McCain replied: “…if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security.” Smith moved on to Afghanistan, still skeptical of the success of the Iraq surge strategy: “If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq , is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan?” Prior to Smith’s interview with McCain, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vice President Joe Biden. She wondered about Obama changing focus to the economy during the prime time address: “This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition?” On Iraq, Hill questioned the stability of the security situation: “There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point?” Hill failed to question the Vice President about his and President Obama’s opposition to the troop surge. Hill wrapped up the interview with Biden by lobbing a softball about the economy: “…you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today?” Here is a full transcript of Smith’s September 1 interview with McCain: 7:10AM ET SEGMENT: HARRY SMITH: And joining us now from Phoenix is Senator John McCain. Senator, good morning. JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning. SMITH: What did you think of the speech last night? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Taking On Obama; McCain’s Reaction to Presidential Address] MCCAIN: Well, I was – I was pleased that the President gave such well-deserved praise to the men and women who have served and those who have sacrificed. It certainly was not generous of him when he mentioned former President George Bush as one who also appreciates the military, but the fact is, that it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it. But the thing that disturbed me the most about it is this continued repetition that we are leaving at a date certain. You don’t win conflicts when you tell the enemy you’re leaving. Our friends are accommodating, our enemies are encouraged. A Taliban captive says ‘you’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time.’ It should be conditions-based. And when those conditions are met, then we can do exactly what we’re now doing in Iraq. SMITH: You’re referring to Afghanistan now. MCCAIN: Afghanistan, yes. I’m sorry. SMITH: One of the things – but one of the things he did say in the speech last night, the pace of reductions in Afghanistan will be determined by conditions on the ground. MCCAIN: If he had stopped there, we’d be in great shape. And then he had to repeat what was purely a political decision, no military person recommended it, that we were going to go ahead and continue – or begin our, quote, ‘withdrawal,’ the middle of next year. Look, that accounts for the behavior, to some degree, of Karzai, the –  many of the things that are happening in the region, because they believe that we are leaving. Look, Harry, I was even – I talked to a police chief outside Kandahar who said, ‘yeah, we think you’re leaving and the Taliban are telling us  they’re going to cut off our heads when you do.’ All he had to do was say it’s conditions-based. SMITH: The – I think part of the subtext of the message last night was, while he did not acknowledge the President’s – prior president, President Bush’s support for the surge, I think that- MCCAIN: Or his opposition – or his vociferous opposition and his opposition throughout- SMITH: Well he also had a year and a half to rescind it. So, he at least gave it tacit agreement –  approval and he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan. My question is, if – is, are there- MCCAIN: Harry, if he had had his way and he won the nomination of his party opposing Hillary Clinton, who had voted for it, that was the whole basis of his campaign. And if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security. SMITH: Let me ask this question, then. If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq, is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan? MCCAIN: The fundamentals are. The same general who made it succeed the last time in Iraq is in charge in Afghanistan. I think he’s the finest general that I’ve had the opportunity – ever had the opportunity of being in the company of. He believes that we can succeed. But I can tell you, the commandant of the Marine Corps said recently that the announcement of beginning a withdrawal, it gives sustenance to the Taliban. I mean, you cannot win conflicts when you say that you are leaving. And again, no military person – no military person with any military background would recommend what the President did. It was a political decision. He made it to please his political base. And he should change it. And it’s wrong to put young Americans in harm’s way when you’re telling your enemies and your friends alike in the region that you’re going to be leaving. SMITH: Alright. Senator John McCain, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it. MCCAIN: Thank you. Thank you. SMITH: Alright, good to see you. Here is a full transcript of Hill’s interview with Biden: 7:06AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: And joining us now from Baghdad is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Erica. HILL: The President last night, of course, said this was time to turn the page and then took that opportunity to say, and I’m quoting here, ‘our most urgent task is to restore our economy.’ This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition? BIDEN: Yes. It was at the end of his speech. He did speak exactly about turning the page here as well. He didn’t use that phrase. He talked about ‘change the mission.’ I’m about to go to a ceremony literally in the next hour where that is taking place. And he did speak at length about the bravery and the sacrifice made by the men and women of this country. But the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, our ability to maintain our national security is, in fact, dependent  upon the economy. And it’s time to focus on that as well. Lastly, Erica, what he was really talking about was, just as we turn the page and are cooperating as Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Iraq, we should be doing the same thing on the economy, cooperating. HILL: When it comes to Iraq, you are there – you are there right now on the ground, of course. As people look at the Iraq that we’re seeing today, the government still in flux six months after an election. There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point? BIDEN: Well, there’s always the possibility, long term, if this goes on, creating a vacuum. But the truth of the matter is, violence is the lowest level it’s been since we arrived in 2003. Number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, that I have been speaking with every one of the major leaders. I’ve met with every one of the groups that are – that won portions of the vote in the election. And I’m absolutely convinced that they are nearing the ability of forming a government that will be a government representing the outcome of the election, which was very much divided. There’s 325-plus members of their parliament, the largest party got 91 votes. So, it takes a while to put together this coalition. But I believe they’re close to doing that. HILL: I do want to bring you back to the economy for one second because, as you said after that first question, you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today? BIDEN: Well, a continuation of what we’re doing now, which is to stimulate the economy by continuing to focus on infrastructure by giving taxes and more tax breaks to small businesses. They’re the job creators, they’re the incubators of job creation. They need the help. And by continuing the middle class tax cut so that middle class people have disposable income in order to meet their needs and, in turn, that stimulates the economy. And I hope the Republicans, when we get back, will, in fact, lift their hold on us being able to vote on a tax cut for small businesses that is tied up in the Senate. So, I just hope we begin to focus more on job creation than on – as the leader of the Republican Party, Mr. Sessions, in charge of the election – re-election of the Congress – said that what we have to do is return to exactly what we were doing before. That’s not much of an alternative. HILL: Vice President Joe Biden, thanks for joining us this morning. BIDEN: Thank you very much, Erica. Pleasure to be with you.

See more here:
CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?

Posted on September 1, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

NBC’s Matt Lauer wanted one question to stick in the minds of his Today show viewers, as from the top of Wednesday’s show, to his interview with Vice President Joe Biden, the Today co-anchor repeatedly asked was the Iraq war “worth it?” As part of the analysis of the President’s Oval Office speech last night, in which Barack Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Lauer invited on Biden, in the 7am half hour, to press him about the costs of the war as he asked: “There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it?” [ audio available here ] For his part Biden responded that since he had a son who served in Iraq for a year, “I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it” but that didn’t dissuade Lauer from pursuing his line of questioning, from the left, as he cited a New York Times editorial to the Vice President: I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? The following intro and full interview with Biden were aired on the September 1 Today show: [7:00am] BARACK OBAMA: Now it’s time to turn the page. MATT LAUER: Page turner. In a primetime Oval address President Obama announces the end of combat operations in Iraq. Was it worth it? Especially for the families who lost loved ones. This morning Vice President Joe Biden tackles that question. … [7:11am] MATT LAUER: Savannah Guthrie, thank you very much. Vice President Joe Biden is in Baghdad this morning. Mr. Vice President, good morning to you. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Matt, how are you? LAUER: I’m fine, sir, thank you very much. There is a question being asked in homes all across the country this morning, after seven years and 4,400 lives and tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women wounded, some of them horrifically, and of course billions and billions of dollars spent, was Iraq worth it? How do you answer that question? BIDEN: My answer, Matt, is that all the sacrifices made by the American people, but particularly by our troops, we have to, in fact, make sure that this transition to the Iraqis works. We have to make sure that when we leave here, there is a stable government that is secure within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors, in order to, to justify all that sacrifice that, that is taking place because the sacrifice is real. LAUER: Well so you’re saying if we don’t ensure the future, it may not have been worth it? In other words, at this stage, is it still unclear whether it’s worth it? BIDEN: Matt, having a son who served here for a year and feeling lucky he came home and thinking about all those parents who didn’t have their child come home, I could never say to any of those parents it’s not worth it. What I have to say is we are committed to making sure that the sacrifices they made bear fruit and the fruit will ultimately be in a stable Iraqi government that is able to stand on their own and, in fact, is not a threat to its neighbors nor threatened by its neighbors. LAUER: You said recently that Iraq now is safe. And you know there were some 50 people killed in insurgent attacks, in the days prior to your visit there. From my understanding, since you been there, on at least three occasions, alarms have sounded warning of incoming mortars. So to, to the families of the 50,000 U.S. troops that remain, now that combat troops are gone, are their loved ones safe? BIDEN: Look Matt, the level of violence is the lowest it’s been since 2003 when we got here. There are traffic jams in the street, there are people walking around and the vast majority of the country, there are, been no attacks. The fact of the matter is that there was an uptick in violence, 12 simultaneous attacks that, in fact took place a week or so ago, creating significantly less damage than any kind of coordinated attack has in the past. It’s still dangerous. But the fact of the matter is those 50,000 troops are well equipped, well protected and they’re in a position where they’re much, much, much safer than troops were a year ago, two years ago, and three years ago. As a matter of fact safer than any time since 2003. But there’s still, there’s still danger that exists in this country. LAUER: In his speech from the Oval Office last night, Mr. Vice President, the President referred to former President Bush and he said that while the two of them were at odds on this war from the very beginning, he said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s quote, “support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” I want to read you something from an editorial in this morning’s New York Times. Quote: “In many ways the war has made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program to direct and finance extremist groups and meddle in Iraq.” Do you agree with that assessment? BIDEN: Well look all I’m gonna focus on today, Matt, is Iraq. The fact of the matter is, that, we are moving in a direction where the Iraqis are better positioned to be able to be successful, free and not a destabilizing force in the world but a positive force. And the question about whether or not credit is deserved, who deserves the credit for this beginning of a fundamental transition, I don’t think is worth arguing about. The truth of the matter is there were a lot of mistakes. There’s no doubt that the President and I both disagreed with the way in which the war had begun, how it was conducted, etc. But, but the truth of the matter is, that at, by the end of the last administration, a transition was in place, there was a political movement that was afoot. We kept on Secretary Gates, our present, we kept on General Petraeus, we kept on a continuity here to finish the job and that’s what we’re in the process of doing. LAUER: Vice President Joe Biden joining us from Baghdad, this morning. Mr. Vice President, I thank you for your time. BIDEN: Thanks an awful lot, Matt. I appreciate it.

Read more:
NBC’s Matt Lauer Repeatedly Presses Joe Biden on Iraq War: Was It Worth It?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Five of Six Networks Press Unyielding Gibbs on Crediting Bush; White House Press Secretary Unleashes on Fox & Friends

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made the rounds of the six broadcast and cable morning news shows on Tuesday morning to help set the table for the President’s speech marking the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Of the six network anchors Gibbs spoke with, only CBS’s Harry Smith failed to ask whether President Obama would extend credit to President Bush for the successful surge strategy (a strategy then-Senator Obama denigrated as futile). ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recited House GOP Leader John Boehner’s dig at politicians who “fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy,” and then rejected Gibbs claim that Boehner’s was “made up history.” NBC’s Matt Lauer recited Obama’s own words to Gibbs: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” At each stop, Gibbs insisted that no one doubted the surge would improve security, but insisted that the real accomplishment was “an improved political situation.” CNN’s John Roberts followed up, asking whether security improvements credited to the surge were essential to those political improvements, but Gibbs dodged: “John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer.” When Gibbs reached Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson was met with condescension and mockery when she asked the same question as the other hosts. “I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer,” Gibbs chided, dodging the question. Later: “That’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question….That’s number five….Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again.” Gibbs never directly stated whether or not the Bush administration deserves any credit for the (so far) positive outcome in Iraq. Only CBS’s Harry Smith — who last year voiced “regret” that he did not abuse his position as a newscaster to “stand up” and say of the Iraq war “this doesn’t make any sense” — refused to ask Gibbs about the surge. Instead, he suggested the seven year military commitment wasn’t worth it: HARRY SMITH: The President goes to Texas today to talk to veterans and soldiers. There are folks who have gone there on deployment after deployment after deployment, and some of them wonder this morning if their sacrifice has been worth it. Gibbs stubborn refusal to share any credit with the Bush administration — even going so far as to belittle a Fox News journalist — is baffling, since President Obama himself declared the surge to be a success in 2008. “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” ( Video ) Here’s how Gibbs handled the five networks that posed questions about President Bush and the surge (thanks to MRC’s Geoff Dickens and Matthew Balan for help transcribing). They’re organized in roughly the order they took place, starting with the broadcast networks and then the three cable networks: # ABC’s Good Morning America: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on that speech, let’s turn now to Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. He joins us from the White House this morning. You know, Robert, already, the House Republican leader [John Boehner] has issued, I guess, a ‘pre-buttal’ of the President’s remarks in the speech he’s going to give today. He says this: ‘Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy, now proudly claim credit for the results. Today, we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated, but progress.’ So he’s basically saying the milestone the President is marking today happened in spite of President Obama, not because of him. Your response? ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, there’s a lot of made-up history in that statement. I think what Congressman Boehner — I think what the American people would like to know, with Congressman Boehner is, do you support withdrawing the 90,000-plus troops that this commander-in-chief is marking the milestone of today? There’s no doubt that were it not for a timeline for getting our combat troops out of Iraq, we’d still be there. First and foremost- STEPHANOPOULOS, interrupting: You say ‘made-up history,’ Robert, but- wait a second. You say ‘made-up history,’ but the President did oppose the surge. GIBBS The President did oppose the surge, George, but understand this: while the surge did provide some increased security in Iraq, what happened was a political transformation that took a long time after those added troops were put into Iraq. There was a Sunni awakening, where Sunni tribesmen decided they did not want to fight with, but against al Qaeda. STEPHANOPOULOS: But does credit also go to the surge? Does the President now believe that President Bush made the right decision to order that surge in troops in Iraq? GIBBS: Again, George, I think the President has always stated and always believed that our security would be- that adding 30,000 troops into Iraq would improve the security. But obviously, the leaders in Iraq had to make some political accommodation to move that country forward…. # NBC’s Today LAUER: You also mentioned at the White House the President would call President Bush in advance of his speech. Has the call taken place? GIBBS: I believe the call will take place a little bit later this morning, likely when the President is on Air Force One flying to thank our troops at Ft. Bliss right outside of El Paso, Texas. I think probably both commanders in chief share, share certainly one thing in common and that is thanking the men and women in uniform for the tremendous sacrifice that they made over the past seven-and-a-half years- LAUER: Right. GIBBS: -the thousands that aren’t coming back from Iraq, the tens of thousands that have been wounded but those that keep us safe and secure each and every day. LAUER: Let me read you something. In January of 2007 when President Bush announced the surge in Iraq, then Senator Barack Obama had this to say, quote, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” So when President Obama speaks to former President Bush today, will he change his mind on that? Will he give President Bush credit for making that decision on the surge and admit that it contributed to the situation of more stability on the ground today? GIBBS: Matt, what is, what is certainly not up for question is that, that President Obama, then candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did. What was necessary for this moment to happen was a diplomatic surge, a change in the Sunnis, the Sunni awakening, rather than fighting with al Qaeda they fought against al Qaeda. I think a number of things, most importantly our men and women in uniform, brought us to this point. LAUER: Right. GIBBS: I think there’s no doubt that the surge improved the security situation. But as this president said many times, the war in Iraq was not going to be fought or won primarily or just militarily. That we had to see some political accommodation and we had to see sectarian violence reduced because Sunni, Shia and Kurd decided to live together and chart Iraq’s future together, not fighting each other. LAUER: Alright Robert Gibbs at the White House. Robert, thank you so much. I appreciate it. # MSNBC’s Morning Joe MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Obviously the war was controversial, in the first few years, especially. The surge was controversial, for sure, and it generated and garnered a lot of criticism. Will the President be crediting the former president for his work there? ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President will talk about the steps that our men and women in uniform took to make this day possible. There’s no doubt about it. I think, Mika, then-candidate Barack Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Baghdad and into Iraq was likely to improve the security situation…. # CNN’s American Morning JOHN ROBERTS: I know that the president is going to call former President Bush this morning. Will he tonight during his speech give credit to the president’s surge strategy for helping to better the security situation there so that the political process could proceed? GIBBS: Well, John, I don’t think there is any doubt. And you heard candidate Barack Obama say that adding 20,000 of our brave men and women who, quite frankly, John, I think we all share the belief that they are owed a tremendous amount of gratitude. The president is in awe of their sacrifice. We knew that adding those men and women in there would improve the security situation, but the reason we are where we are today is because of an improved political situation, we know that the Sunni awakening, Sunni tribes in the western part of Iraq began not to fight with but to fight against al Qaeda. And all of those circumstances led to a point in which we’re at today. I will say this, John — I think many people believe that when the President made a commitment to end our combat mission in Iraq by August 31, 2010, I am not sure many people believed that he could pull it off. He’s kept his word. He will talk about the fact that we’ve made a determination that in July 2011, we’ll begin to transition our mission in Afghanistan as well. ROBERTS: Just back on the surge strategy. There’s no question that the surge strategy did improve security. I think most military and political analysts would agree. But you said that it would improve security but it was the political aspect of it that took place that allowed Iraq to come to where it is today. But most military and political analysts would tell you that the improvement in security, because of the surge, set the conditions for the political aspect of it. I’m wondering, again, will the president credit President Bush’s surge strategy for setting the conditions to allow withdrawal? GIBBS: John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer. Again, I don’t think anybody doubted that the 20,000 people were going to improve the security situation in Iraq. It was the political accommodation that had to happen. It was Sunni, Shia and Kurd that had to decide not to fight one another in sectarian violence but to live and work together and chart Iraqis’ future together…. # Now, the most contentious, the Fox & Friends appearance. I’ve loaded the entire transcript, so you can see that Gibbs was inaccurate when he accused Carlson of asking the same question two or three times in a row, which set off his string of sarcastic remarks. GRETCHEN CARLSON: Welcome back, everyone. Well, tonight is the big night. President Obama expected to announce the formal end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. How will this change our mission there, and is Iraq stable enough to stand alone on its own. Joining me now, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Good morning to you, Mr. Gibbs. ROBERT GIBBS: Good morning, how are you? CARLSON: I’m doing just fine. So the big question today is, why now? Why not wait until Iraq is a bit more stable. Why tonight? GIBBS: Well, look, I think Iraq is very stable right now. We have — despite the fact that there is still violence in Iraq, and there certainly will continue to be — as General Ray Odierno told the President in the Situation Room a few weeks ago, it’s among the lowest in measurable violence that we’ve seen in the seven and a half years that American troops have been in Iraq. There’s no doubt that we’re still in the midst of government formation, but the Iraqi security forces provided the security for that election. And I think what’s important today is that as we transition out of our combat role to assisting the Iraqis, the future and the history of Iraq will be written by and be responsible — the Iraqis will be responsible for writing that. CARLSON: Will President Obama recognize the success of the surge put in place by President Bush tonight? GIBBS: Well, look — there’s any doubt that first and foremost that the men and women in our uniform and the sacrifices that I think we are all in awe of and the President will laud today both at Fort Bliss when he stops there as well as in his speech. I don’t think there’s any doubt as candidate Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Iraq would improve the security situation. I think along with — CARLSON: Candidate Obama said that? No, wait, excuse me, back in 2007 he said he was against the surge. GIBBS: No, he said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simple militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accommodation. We had sectarian violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurd and, quite frankly, the Sunni and the Shia and the Kurd had to decide they were going to live and work together for an iraq that met their future needs and not fight each other. I think that’s why we’re at this moment and that’s what the President is going — CARLSON: So that will be the way in which the President will address his flip-flop on the issue tonight? GIBBS: Gretchen, I’m happy to spend a lot of time looking back at decisions four years ago or even seven and a half years ago. I think what’s important, while you guys play political games, is the President to laud our men and women and to mark the end of our combat mission. CARLSON: No political games here. I think a lot of people in the American public are wanting to know what the President will say and how he’ll rectify what he said back in 2007. Let me ask you this- GIBBS: Let’s just be very clear- CARLSON: Word on the street is the President is going to call President Bush today. What will he say when he calls President Bush? GIBBS: Well, I think the President will talk about the situation in Iraq. Thank the President for his service, for his love of country. And I think they’ll have a nice private, quiet conversation about what’s going on in the world. CARLSON: Will the President, will President Obama credit President Bush tonight in his speech for the success in Iraq? GIBBS: Again, Gretchen, I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer. CARLSON: No, this is the first time I’ve asked you the question. GIBBS: Okay, maybe I’m having a hard time counting to three CARLSON: Will President Obama thank President Bush tonight during his speech for the success of the surge? GIBBS: No, that’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question. CARLSON: Well, you haven’t answered it. Will he credit President Bush tonight for the success of the surge? GIBBS: That’s number five. Let me give you the same answer I gave you the first time. CARLSON: In baseball you get three strikes and you’re out. You’ve had five chances to answer the question. Will he credit President Bush tonight? GIBBS: Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again. There is no doubt and the President will mention that adding men and women into Iraq improved the security situation. There’s no doubt about that. But I think we would all recognize, Gretchen, if you’ll take a moment to understand that we wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq without the political accommodation. We wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq today without the Sunni tribes deciding instead of fighting with al Qaeda, they were going to fight against al Qaeda. There were a whole series of factors that went into marking where we are today. I have one question for you, Gretchen, do you support the fact that the President is pulling out more than 90,000 troops today and ending our combat mission there? CARLSON: Well, this is not an interview of Gretchen Carlson. This is an interview with the spokesman of President Obama on one of the most important issues facing the American public today. GIBBS: That’s my one question for you, and I can even ask it five more times. CARLSON: Well, that would be very cute, I guess. Let’s go back to why tonight, because you have Michael O’Hanlon, who’s from the Brookings Institute, saying this is not the right time for a victory lap. If I were him — speaking to the President — I would wait until they have a government and do it with Iraqis together. How would you respond to Mr. O’Hanlon on that? GIBBS: Well, look, Gretchen, I’ve said this before. This is not a victory lap. You’re not going to see any ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners that will be unfurled and you won’t hear the President say the words ‘mission accomplished.’ We understand that violence will still continue. We understand we still have troops there. But it’s important to transition our role out of Iraq and put the Iraqis in control and make sure that the Iraqis are responsible for the decisions that have to govern that country. That’s also a reason why we’re marking this transition today is we put pressure on the Iraqis to come up with decisions and accommodations that they could live with themselves rather than fighting each other because we told them we weren’t going to be there forever and that at a certain point, we were going to transition out. It’s their responsibility. The Vice President is over there now. I don’t think there’s any doubt that we will very soon have a government in place, the last election it took six months to form a government. This election was certified in June, and I think we’re making progress toward that end. CARLSON: And undoubtedly, your boss, the President, will thank the troops tonight during his speech as well. GIBBS: You know, the president will start today, Gretchen, at Fort Bliss which saw some of the heaviest combat fighting at the very beginning of this war and they had troops that were — that have served there continuously. Some have served two, three and four times. You know, Gretchen, whether you agree that we should have gone or not, whether you agree on the certain tactics, I think we can all agree that the men and women of our uniform — the men and women in uniform and those that provide our safety and security and sacrifice and the families that they have that sacrifice so much are a group of people that we are forever indebted to. CARLSON: All right. Very well said. Robert Gibbs, spokesperson to the President. We will all watch tonight, 8pm Eastern time. Thanks for your time this morning. GIBBS: Thank you.

Read the rest here:
Five of Six Networks Press Unyielding Gibbs on Crediting Bush; White House Press Secretary Unleashes on Fox & Friends

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

NBC’s Engel Dumps On Iraq War, Claims Hussein Was Becoming More ‘Moderate’

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On the day that the U.S. is ending combat operations in Iraq, the Today show, on Tuesday, brought on their chief foreign correspondent to essentially say the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. The noted anti-war reporter, when asked by Today co-anchor Ann Curry did, “Anything positive come from this war?” proceeded to dump on the entire mission as he relayed that Iraqis are upset that the United States “has failed to deliver on its promises,” claimed that Saddam Hussein, before the war, was “getting more moderate” and concluded that the mission was “a giant distraction of resources” and if not for the invasion of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan “would probably be over.” As the MRC’s Tim Graham pointed out in 2006 , Engel isn’t exactly the most objective analyst the Today show could’ve brought on to analyze the war, as he admitted to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz that he thinks “war should be illegal” and he told him “I’m basically a pacifist.”  The following is the full exchange between Curry and Engel as it was aired on the August 31 Today show: ANN CURRY: NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel has covered this war in Iraq since it began and also as it ended. Richard, good morning. RICHARD ENGEL: Good morning. CURRY: So keying off what Mr. Gibbs just said, what Iraq are we leaving its people to write its, their future with? ENGEL: Well, right now I think Iraq is in a very, very dangerous place. It’s very possible they will have another round of civil war. In the end of his comments right there you, he was talking about the political accord between Sunni, Shiites and Kurds that helped to bring some security gains. That accord is calling apart right now. CURRY: So how fragile on a scale of one to ten, ten being worst? ENGEL: Nine. CURRY: Nine? ENGEL: Yeah. I think it’s very fragile. I think if they don’t get a government in the next couple of months the, all of the gains from the surge could be wiped out. CURRY: Anything positive come from this war? ENGEL: Come from this war? Saddam Hussein is gone and any one, any Iraqi will tell you that. Saddam really was that bad. And every Iraqi suffered in that. And, but, but if you ask Iraqis what’s happened since then and they will complain that the political structure that was created in their country, by the United States, has failed to deliver on its promises to the people. CURRY: Meantime had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, where would Iraq be today? Where would the geopolitical situation be today? ENGEL: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. The, the sanctions regime that was holding in place was starting to fail. So I think he would, it would be somewhat of a basket case but it would still, it would be – Iran would be a lot more contained. So it would be a dictatorship that was trying to break out of its box but Iran would not be as dangerous as it is, as it is today. CURRY: And had the United States not invaded Iraq, would we be done in Afghanistan? ENGEL: Probably. That was a giant distraction of resources, of intelligence assets. That war would probably be over. CURRY: Richard Engel with perspective that’s very valuable on this war and many other stories. Thank you so much this morning.

See the original post:
NBC’s Engel Dumps On Iraq War, Claims Hussein Was Becoming More ‘Moderate’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Livestreaming Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ Rally

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

More:
Livestreaming Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ Rally

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Here is how the Wall Street Journal began its lead editorial, “Victory in Iraq,” on Aug. 20 — When the men and women of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division deployed to Iraq in April 2007 as part of President Bush’s surge, American soldiers were being killed or wounded at a rate of about 750 a month, the country was falling into sectarian mayhem, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had declared that the war was ‘lost.’ On Wednesday, the ‘Raiders’ became the last combat brigade to leave Iraq, having helped to defeat an insurgency, secure a democracy and uphold the honor of American arms. For viewers of NBC and MSNBC earlier that week, the title of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division would likely have struck a chord — on Aug. 18, both networks interrupted their scheduled broadcasts with exclusive live coverage of the brigade crossing the border into Kuwait, the last US combat brigade to leave Iraq. The two networks’ coverage went far beyond that, however. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, was embedded with the brigade as it left Iraq while MSNBC cable show host Rachel Maddow weighed in from Baghdad. Maddow remained in Iraq for the rest of the week, broadcasting four hours of her show from there, an hour more than usual. Yet through all that coverage, much of it focused on this specific combat brigade’s departure from Iraq, at no time did Maddow (nor any of her NBC/MSNBC colleagues appearing on her show) mention when the brigade went to Iraq — in April 2007, at the start of the much-maligned surge that was surely doomed to fail. Or so we were repeatedly told. Not that Maddow was obligated to mention the surge in her lede, as it were, as did the Wall Street Journal (on the opposite side of the political divide) in its editorial. But surely she could have cited it even once during her three days in Baghdad. Then there was Maddow’s arch retelling of recent Iraqi history (first part of embedded video) — The history of Iraq for the last generation is, Saddam taking power, a decade of the war with Iran, where we took Iraq’s side, then the first American war, then a decade of sanctions, then the second American war, toppling Saddam, presiding over a civil war, and now there’s us leaving. After all that, good luck! Hope it all works out for you guys! I was reminded of this specific Maddow revisionism while watching her show on Wednesday, when she began a segment claiming this (second part of video) — I am a crier. Some people cry at the sound of Harry Chapin’s ‘Cat’s in the Cradle,’ others at ‘Old Yeller’ or the end of ‘Where the Red Fern Grows’ where Billy visits his dogs’ graves. I cry at those things too. But the one surefire way to see tears streaming down these cheeks is a live rendition of our nation’s national anthem. It doesn’t matter if it’s a baseball game or an ad for a pickup truck or, God forbid, a busker on the subway, it’s just one of those things, some people like me are hard-wired to sob by the time the broad stripes and bright stars are so gallantly streaming. How noble indeed. More people might believe this if Maddow were not so willing to imply moral equivalence between the butchery of Saddam’s totalitarian regime and American efforts to thwart his lawlessness after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. At the end of her stint in Baghdad, Maddow reported from the home of a “working class, poor Shiite family” (third and final part of video) — … and they’ve agreed to talk with me a little bit about, you know, what everybody likes to talk about over dinner — politics, war and George Bush. … followed by Bush not coming up in the discussion, as can be seen in the segment in its entirety on Maddow’s MSNBC site. Here was an infrequent example of something on Maddow’s show that piqued my interest — what would a “working class, poor Shiite family” in Baghdad say about George W. Bush? One safely assumes from the fact Maddow is teasing this that the Iraqis will excoriate Bush. But if they did, it somehow didn’t make it into the segment that ran. Most likely scenario — Maddow said this before the interview when she intended to ask her Iraqi hosts about Bush, followed by her forgetting to do so and them not mentioning him. Another scenario that can’t be ruled out — any of the Iraqis praising Bush, thereby ensuring that such blasphemy would not be heard by Americans watching MSNBC.

Originally posted here:
Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rich Lowry Smacks Down Fox Lib: Media Stopped Covering Iraq When We Started Winning

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Rich Lowry on Saturday had a fabulous exchange with one of Fox News’s many liberal contributors over why the media stopped covering Iraq. As the discussion on “Fox News Watch” turned to this week’s troop withdrawal, the National Review editor claimed wartime press reports are “extremely defeatist all through the prism of Vietnam and then if we succeed it kind of ends in a whimper.” Newsday’s Ellis Henican countered, “People get bored in a hurry and we got bored with this [war] two or three years ago.”  Lowry marvelously sniped back, “When we started to win” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well it’s a notable milestone. I mean, it’s obviously not the end by any means. We still have 50,000 guys there and there’s still a lot that’s up in the air. The problem I have, you know, NBC declared the Iraq War a civil war, rightly in my mind, but I’m not sure they ever walked that back and said, “No, actually the civil war has ended because the surge has suppressed the violence.” And this is the typical trajectory of war coverage. It’s going to happen in Afghanistan if we succeed there. We’re extremely defeatist all through the prism of Vietnam and then if we succeed it kind of ends in a whimper. ELLIS HENICAN, NEWSDAY: Let me say this quickly. The other typical trajectory of war coverage is people get bored in a hurry and we got bored with this one two or three years ago… LOWRY: When we started to win, when we started to win! HENICAN: No, whatever. But frankly it’s nice to see some coverage again. Maybe you and I should go over there, how about that? LOWRY: Would that all wars would be so boring. Indeed. After all, it seemed that once the 2007 surge showed success, America’s media totally lost interest. I guess it was much more fascinating for them when things weren’t going well. A marvelous example of this occurred on October 7 of that year. After the announcement that September 2007 saw a sharp decline in American casualties in Iraq, CNN’s Howard Kurtz asked  “Reliable Sources” guests Barbara Starr and Robin Wright why our media didn’t report the news. They amazingly responded: ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we’re at the beginning of a trend — and it’s not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq. There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal — from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn’t have much of a capability in the south. So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached. KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on “LOU DOBBS TONIGHT.” Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don’t know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers. BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that’s the problem, we don’t know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress. KURTZ: But let’s say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages. STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that’s certainly — that, by any definition, is news. Yep – losing is news. Winning isn’t. Good thing the media don’t cover sporting events that way. 

The rest is here:
Rich Lowry Smacks Down Fox Lib: Media Stopped Covering Iraq When We Started Winning

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eight Years of Bias: The Liberal Media vs. the War in Iraq

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The peaceful departure of the last U.S. combat forces from Iraq this week was another milestone towards the successful end of a war that many liberal journalists declared lost four years ago. Since early 2009, the war in Iraq has been a relatively low priority for the national press, which has focused on decrying the war in Afghanistan and cheerleading the Obama administration’s aggressive domestic agenda. But over the last eight years — since journalists began decrying what they termed the Bush administration’s “rush to war” in August 2002, a full seven months before the first bombs fell — the Media Research Center has analyzed TV coverage of the Iraq conflict. The bottom line: reporters were obvious skeptics from the very beginning, and did all they could to push withdrawal and defeat before George W. Bush’s surge strategy saved the day. A quick review of the media’s approach over the past eight years, with many links to the additional information that can be found at www.MRC.org: ■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology , all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side , or roughly double the percentage of Senators and Representatives who actually voted against using force (29%). Despite the claim that the media never “asked tough questions,” an MRC study of all Iraq stories on ABC’s World News Tonight during September 2002 discovered that ABC reporters were nearly four times more likely to voice doubt about the truthfulness of statements by U.S. officials than Iraqi claims.  Reporters also sanitized the “peace” movement , masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic “middle class” demonstrators. ■ Combat Coverage. When the U.S. and its coalition partners began carefully targeted bombing of government buildings Baghdad on March 21, 2003, then-MSNBC anchor Brian Williams compared it to notorious attacks during World War II that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: “That vista on the lower-left looks like Dresden, it looks like some of the firebombing of Japanese cities during World War II.” Writing in the New York Times the next morning, reporter David Chen compared it to the terrorist attack on New York City : “For some, the bombing brought back particularly visceral and chilling memories. They could not help thinking about Sept. 11, and how New York, too, was once under assault from the skies.” But worst of all was NBC/MSNBC correspondent Peter Arnett , who reported lies about U.S. use of “cluster bombs” against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video just days before the regime toppled: “Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces….Now America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance; now they are trying to write another war plan.” ■ Capture of Saddam Hussein: When the former Iraqi dictator was captured in December 2003, ABC anchor Peter Jennings sniffed that “there’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment. Life is still very chaotic, beset by violence in many cases, huge shortages. In some respects, Iraqis keep telling us life is not as stable for them as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power.” For a despot who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the coverage was surprisingly sympathetic. “The tyrant has fallen. But for some, he’s a fallen hero ,” CBS’s Kimberly Dozer relayed. “Saddam Hussein also gave Iraqis dignity and pride. He became a symbol of defiance across the Arab world, never backing down from a fight….Those who loved him and those who hated him still can’t separate the man from the country in their minds. For many, his humiliation is their own.” ■ Waves of Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study that year showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion’s share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined. The media’s inordinately negative tone was both frustrating and perplexing to those with first-hand knowledge of the situation. On November 22, 2005, for example, the Washington Times ran a lengthy op-ed from an anonymous Marine in Iraq: “Morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them….They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like ‘Are we losing in Iraq?’ on television.” ■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine “massacre” at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. Referring to the killing of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians back in 1968, ABC’s Terry Moran wondered “Will Haditha be the My Lai of the Middle East?” But allegations of a heinous war crime have so far been unfounded: Of the eight Marines originally charged, one has been found not guilty and charges against six others have been dismissed. The trial of the last Marine, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich , begins next month. While the networks were excited by charges of wrongdoing against U.S. servicemen, an MRC study of coverage from 2001 through 2006 found those news organizations gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America’s highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror. Fourteen of the top 20 medal recipients up to that time had gone completely unmentioned by the broadcast networks. ■ Battling Bush’s Surge: The Bush administration’s attempt to salvage the situation in Iraq met with a blizzard of hostile coverage in January 2007. Ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw scoffed that sending more troops to Iraq would “seem to most people…like a folly.” NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith: “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” Over on CBS, correspondent Lara Logan counseled that an earlier experiment adding 12,000 troops into Baghdad “made absolutely no difference….In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.” The networks remained openly skeptical eight months later as General David Petraeus gave Congress his first status report on the operation. “Insurgent attacks are down,” ABC’s Terry McCarthy noted on the September 9, 2007 World News Sunday, the day before Petraeus testified before Congress. But “Iraq remains a very violent place….Life in central Iraq is still deadly dangerous.” CBS’s David Martin contended: “Victory is not at hand, not even in sight.” ■ Little Time for Good News. By late 2007, however, the surge strategy denigrated by network correspondents had borne obvious fruit. But the reaction of the broadcast evening newscasts was to begin walking away from the Iraq story. Network coverage dropped from 178 stories/month in September 2007 to just 68 stories/month in November 2007. By February 2008, coverage had dropped to barely 40 stories/month . The end of combat operations is really a postscript to what should have been the big headline, the success of the U.S. surge strategy in smashing the al-Qaeda fueled insurgency that was plaguing Iraq in 2006.

Continue reading here:
Eight Years of Bias: The Liberal Media vs. the War in Iraq

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,