Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDenying the Truth: Petraeus, Iraq, and Our Pontius Pilate Press
I was in Miami last night for the Univision-hosted Democratic debate. Listening to their responses on Iraq left no doubt that the candidates have gotten the message that, no matter what Gen. Petraeus says during his testimony, the American people -- including the Hispanic community -- are done with this war.
"We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," said Hillary Clinton.
"I believe no political progress [in Iraq] means no funding without a timetable for withdrawal," said John Edwards.
"I'm calling on Republican congressmen and legislators to overturn the president's veto of a timetable," said Barack Obama.
Later, after the debate, Chris Dodd told me he had made it clear to Harry Reid: "As you are trying to get Republican votes for a compromise bill, don't count on my vote on any legislation that doesn't include a clear withdrawal date."
I asked freshman Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey if he felt the same way. "I voted against the war as a Congressman," he told me. "I've been in favor of a definite withdrawal date for a long time. I don't close the door on a bill that, like the Webb amendment, would achieve the same results by making troops unavailable. But it's time for America to stop enabling Iraqis' refusal to come to terms with what they need to do."
So the American people get it, and the Democrats running for president and trying to win their votes get it. Then why do so many in the media still not get it?
In Sunday's New York Times, Michael Gordon, Judy Miller's former partner in the Ahmed Chalabi vaudeville production of "Saddam's Got WMD," served up a fact-challenged piece of administration propaganda in which he asserted, "The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population."
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Nowhere does Gordon point out that the methodology the Pentagon uses to arrive at the comprehensive stats he cites has been thoroughly discredited, as shown by the Washington Post. Instead he asserts:
"Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005."
Apparently, this means there was some period in 2006 in which attacks, as measured in some particular way, were higher than now. Thanks, Michael Gordon. Your White House thank-you note is no doubt in the mail.
Gordon ends his muddled piece by adopting the pseudo-objective "on the one hand... but on the other" stance favored by so many in his profession: "The figures that have emerged in recent government reports have seemingly provided something for everyone."
I guess we just can't know anything, can we?
Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of "what is truth" to their readers -- refusing to admit that there is even such a thing as truth. It is particularly troubling that so many in a profession dedicated to the idea that there is a truth to be ferreted out -- and that the public has a right to know it -- remain so resolutely committed to presenting two sides to every story -- even when the facts are solidly on one side.
Progress in Iraq is actually something that can be measured. Last week's report from the Government Accountability Office did such measuring. That's why it was immediately attacked by Republicans -- because it pointed out that Iraq was failing to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks.
But the administration has faith that, because of the way too many in the press operate, all it has to do is sow doubt. The GAO puts out one set of facts, the administration puts out an opposing set of "facts" -- and counts on reporters to refuse to see the difference between facts and "facts."
Case in point: Sunday's AP story about how Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wouldn't be meeting with "Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses" in order to protect the "independence and the integrity of their testimony." This is a claim that is beneath contempt. It is hard to fathom how a journalistic operation could write something so blatantly untrue when there have been numerous stories about how the Petraeus report has already been discussed and thoroughly vetted by the White House and how Ed Gillespie has set up a war room between the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House to coordinate the Petraeus PR campaign.
The stated purpose of the surge was to provide the stability and security necessary for political progress to be made by the Iraqi government. Progress that, as the GAO report made clear, is unequivocally not happening.
So the White House focuses on small improvements in cherry-picked data. But it surely isn't surprising that in the immediate vicinity of the 30,000 troops involved in the surge, attacks might temporarily decrease. Just as it's not surprising, for instance, that the crime
rate inside the gates of the White House is lower than the rate in NE Washington. The point of the surge was that it would have a political spillover effect. But since that hasn't happened, the White House is once again attempting to move the goalposts, and the Michael Gordons of the press corps are there to help with the heavy lifting.
The problem for the White House, and General Petraeus, and the go-along members of the press, is that the public isn't buying it anymore. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 40 percent of Americans expect General Petraeus to give an accurate picture of Iraq. Fifty-three percent believe he'll give an overly optimistic presentation. And a whopping two-thirds say it doesn't matter what Petraeus says because Bush will hold to his Iraq policy no matter what.
Today, we've been told by the White House and by the press, is The Big Day. Petraeus has come down from the mountaintop with his 10 Commandments and all of humanity now knows the way forward in Iraq. Except, unlike the original, Petraeus' message is not divinely inspired. Indeed, having watched his opening salvo -- which he delivered while barely looking up from his script -- it's not even grounded in reality.
The driving force of the White House's approach to this war has been the belief that saying something is so makes it so. That truly is the first commandment of the Bush administration. But it wasn't true when the war started and it's not true now.
The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what's happening in Iraq when there is only one.
Arianna Huffington is the editor of The Huffington Post and the author of many books, including her most recent, On 'Becoming Fearless….in Love, Work and Life'.
© 2007 The Huffington Post
37 Comments so far
Show AllSenator Menendez: "But it's time for America to stop enabling Iraqis' refusal to come to terms with what they need to do."
This comment/observation displays an enormous twisting of the historical facts related to the Iraqi Holocaust. Indeed, it is quite Orwellian as the exact opposite is true. But we should now be quite used to veracity challenged politicos as they seem to represent the great majority of the entire federal government, not just congresscritters.
It should also be clear by now to those capable of critical analysis that Huffington Post is just another cog of somewhat differnet color operating as part of the manufacturing of consent--The Iraqis are undeserving of our sacrifice, so we must leave.
Is it possible that the U.S. invasion and occupation has so crippled the country formerly known as Iraq, to the point where it is not possible for it to recover? How many Iraqis have fled to Syria? How many lack adequate food, water, shelter, and health care? How does a country recover from a situation like this? Europe recovered from WWII thanks in large part to a massive infusion of American help. But that was before the days of privatization of all government functions, and cronyism over competence. I don't think Truman ever shipped a skid-load of cash directly over to Europe, but if he did, I'll bet it didn't get "lost."
Frankly my biggest problem with trying to make sense of the discourse over a war that never should have happened and for which there's no solution except trying to find the lesser evil, is my distrust of almost everyone I hear discussing it. The issue is so politicized that, as with really all important issues facing the nation, what I seem to hear out of the mouths of leaders isn't leadership but election-speak.
"How can I present the issue in the most simplistic possible terms that a large swath of the public can swallow in an easy sound bite that will advance my chances for election?"
That seems to be the burning question on every "statesman's" mind...
Just a dumb question: why does our measurement matter in Iraq? The Iraqis want us out. It's their country. They never wanted us in. Some 80% want us to leave categorically and immediately.
It only makes sense to measure and calculate the extent of our presence in Iraq if we argue from the premise that the US owns the world and is free to occupy or not occpuy any portion of the globe at our unilateral discretion.
Do we really believe that? Why?
"Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of "what is truth" to their readers — refusing to admit that there is even such a thing as truth."
Petraeus was never asked by the House Armed Services Committee Chairman to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The question Ray McGovern asked, and what all of us should be asking is: "If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in?"
Kivals,
I also like your idea. I think it work dovetail nicely with Gravel's idea of National Initiative for Democracy.
I agree that an economic collapse of staggering proportions might be necessary to bring about real change. An alternative would be a long, long struggle by "we the people" to reclaim our rightful position atop the totem pole of our democracy where we belong by design.
I have decided to commit myself to the idea of the national initiative, but an economic collapse would certainly speed things up, though we would all feel the pain of that route. Of course, we're in pain of a different kind now.
In this scenario, the "fourth branch" already exists -- it's the citizens, "we the people" who collectively hold all the power in a true democracy. The government is our government to fashion as we so desire. The public servants are our public servants and they serve at our pleasure.
We have to find a way to get back to that democratic foundation. I'm not sure having a team of experts that serves the public will accomplish this by itself, but it would certainly be an excellent complement to it.
It would sort of be like a Cabinet for the citizens. It could be all volunteer, calling on experts to testify as citizens for the benefity of all whenever some national initiative legislation is proposed. There would have to be some mechanism for preventing special interests from stacking the panels.
Earthian,
Thanks for your comments and the info about Ireland. I was not aware of their system. Fascinating.
those last two stars sure came in a hurry for the good general. i'm guessing it was for his integrity and honesty.
There was little doubt that General Petraeus would promote the White House's warmongering agenda in his testimony. Somewhat less certain is how members of Congress will now respond to it. From a psychological perspective, warmongering often "works" because we fail to confront it with cogent and uncompromising counter-arguments. Such resistance is especially difficult when the warmongers target our core concerns about personal and collective vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. I apply this analysis to the Bush administration's war in Iraq—and its possible plans for an attack on Iran—in a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." The video examines ten warmongering appeals and counterarguments against them. It's available for viewing HERE.
The White House, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the press/media/journalists are the 4 pillars of war. The last bunch that has been serving as war's cheerleaders and propagandists has been having a free ride. It's time for all of us to call them and write to them calling them the co-criminal scum that they are. This would be much more productive than calling or writing to your so-called representative, because they're corporate reps, not yours.
The REAL measure of success is: Have they found the WMD's yet? ho ho ho
Americans are not only losing the war on terror because they are stupid but rather because they are too stupid to get that.
"...Sunday's AP story about how Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wouldn't be meeting with "Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses" in order to protect the "independence and the integrity of their testimony." This is a claim that is beneath contempt. It is hard to fathom how a journalistic operation could write something so blatantly untrue when there have been numerous stories about how the Petraeus report has already been discussed and thoroughly vetted by the White House and how Ed Gillespie has set up a war room between the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House to coordinate the Petraeus PR campaign."
How can some Americans eat this crap? Because they weren't paying attention anyways. Want to get their attention, institute the draft. Then they'll pay attention. This whole War has depended on a certain segment of our society not paying much attention. Even though many of the people here are gravely concerned on about this war, we sometimes forget that many Americans just don't really care unless it effects their daily lives. The Bush Administration knew this from the beginning with it's plea for America to go about it's business as usual after 9/11. Hell, that's how he got elected.
Hey, it's not what the People have to say - it's what the people actually do that counts. Talk is cheap.
Action by the American people is required. Strong action. Marching on the White House. Riding the bastards out of town on a rail. Altering the Constitution to stop another Bush ever appearing. Severing all the ties between politicians and Big Business. Getting rid of Political dynasties.
That'll do for starters!
P.T. Barnum said it best: "There's a sucker born every minute!"
After 17 generals put through the Bush crime syndicates 'thrashing' machine we begin to wonder how many generals are left that haven't retired and/or are not currently writing their 'poison pen' books condemning the Whitehouse 'idiot savant' and his favorite ventriloquist, Dick 'head' Cheney.
TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone AZ.
"Kill 'em all Hezbollah - Let their G-D sort them out!"
Perhaps the responses to this thread is a story in itself.
What DO the People have to say?
You: Question
You: Research
You: Reason
You: Form your own independent conclusion
US: 9/11 was an inside job
World: Wake up you daft fools! Stop killing, torturing, raping, kidnapping people!!!
until we don't accept that the holocaust was a concoction of one of the sickest partnership to remember 'nazi criminal fanatics and jewish bankers'we will continue to misread history preventing us to draw the lessons we should by now have learnt.
As mirf59 (4:51 pm) noted, Arianna's claim that the Dem candidates "get it" is utterly absurd. It immediately demonstrates that Arianna herself does not really "get it." She's come a long way from the rightwing fruitcake that she used to be, only 12 or so years ago. But the main reason we see her name up in lights so often must have something to do with her enthusiasm or her ex-husband's money. (Whatever it is, it sure isn't because she's all that astute.)
The Dem candidates most assuredly do NOT "get it." They are all phonies (even Kucinich, because, while he does speak a fair amount of truth -- unlike his completely shameless colleagues -- he's only in the game to keep antiwar types from bolting from his disgusting party. He knows full well that when Hillary inevitably becomes the nominee, he'll wind up supporting her -- just as he did for the pro-war Kerry in '04).
The "top tier" Dem candidates are all disgraceful lying weasels, engaged in a macho pissing contest about who takes the fewest bombing options "off the table." Hillary seems to have the most "balls" in this department, judging by her corporate backing. Not a single Democrat -- not even Kucinich -- talks about whether the Iraq horror is a war crime, whose perpetrators would be hanged if judged by the standards set at Nuremberg.
"The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what's happening in Iraq when there is only one."
The New World Order starts at home. One party, one empire. The empire's media might never tell you the truth, that 9/11 was a false flag attack.
Any discussion of "withdrawl" is absolutuely meaningless if it is not defined as complete and total withdrawl of all US/Coalition forces and mercenaries from Iraq and the surrounding region.
One part of that discussion should be an Iraqi-approved international force.
Another part should be exactly what amount of reparations will the US/Coalition provide over what period of time and what sort of body should administer the funds.
The Iraqi resistance has militarily defeated the US/Coalition forces. While we have the power to infict destruction and misery on Iraq and its people almost indefinitely, we don't have either the power or resources to impose our will.
That's all folks.
If the American people get it, and the polls show they do, then who the heck cares what a bunch of lying talking heads in the media are saying.
Adrianna's focus is dead backwards. The media in itself is not important. Its only important in its ability to influence people, or at times in its ability to confuse people. This is what happened in 2001-2003, the media lies were believed by the American people which in turn created the support for the war at the time of its launch.
But now its plain that the American people aren't listening to the media talking heads when it comes to Iraq. The media is plainly launching a pro-war propaganda blitz, and this piece points out that the poll numbers aren't moving in response. The American people aren't buying it this time.
The problem is that we have a government that doesn't respond to the American people. And in particular, the Democrats in Congress refuse to listen to and respond to the American people. Its the Democrats that are the problem. If the Democrats in Congress can't stop a war when backed by 80% of the American people, then what we need is a new opposition party in Congress.
Kivals, you suggest we get university people from different fields in our legislature. I don't think we'd need a new house. That would just add a fourth veto point, adding to the House-Senate-Presidential veto points. But the idea of having university experts--some of our most knowledgeable people--has been tried by Ireland. That is how most of their upper house (senate) is chosen. And seems to work, for the lower house is chosen proportionally, so they have multi-party representation there. I think your idea is a great one. House seats can be alloted to university people, or senate seats. With a constitutional convention, before or after some economic catastrophe, The People can reshape our government make needed changes. Bravo to your idea. Countries do it all the time Ecuador is doing it now. So is the State of Ontario in Canada. US states have had 233 constitutional conventions.
Some details below from the brilliant Irish Constitution:
>>Article 18
1. Seanad Éireann shall be composed of sixty members, of whom eleven shall be nominated members and forty-nine shall be elected members.

2. A person to be eligible for membership of Seanad Éireann must be eligible to become a member of Dáil Éireann.

3. The nominated members of Seanad Éireann shall be nominated, with their prior consent, by the Taoiseach who is appointed next after the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann following the dissolution thereof which occasions the nomination of the said members.

4. 1° The elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be elected as follows:—
i Three shall be elected by the National University of Ireland.
ii Three shall be elected by the University of Dublin.
iii Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided.
2° Provision may be made by law for the election, on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law, by one or more of the following institutions, namely:
i the universities mentioned in subsection 1° of this section,
ii any other institutions of higher education in the State,
of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected pursuant to paragraphs i and ii of the said subsection 1°.
A member or members of Seanad Éireann may be elected under this subsection by institutions grouped together or by a single institution.
3° Nothing in this Article shall be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of a university mentioned in subsection 1° of this section.
5. Every election of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be held on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, and by secret postal ballot.

6. The members of Seanad Éireann to be elected by the Universities shall be elected on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law.



WHEN RUSSIA WAS BACKING IRAQ, THEY FOUGHT OFF IRAN EVEN THO AMERICA WAS SUPPORTING IRAN. RUSSIA WILL BACK THEM AGAIN. YANKEES GO HOME! IRAQ CAN HANDLE THEIR OWN WARS. BUSH GO TO HELL. JUST QUOTING A LEBANONESE BUSINESS FRIEND WORKING IN RUSSIA.
Arianna,
your writing that the Democratic candidates "get it" is as cynical and backward as the war itself. I'm quite sure you know that none of the establishment Democratic candidates are going to endorse any course of action that substantially deviates from the current path.
In aiding and abetting the phony leftist election posturing of these hopefuls, you show yourself to be no better than the media you appear to be criticizing.
It's so worn out: win the left with crazy claims you have no intention of following through on to get elected, then govern and triangulate a la Bill Clinton once you get in.
It's all so damned boring. Does anyone have anything new?
Why don't you write about WHY the Beltway course of action, which includes the punditocracy such as yourself, differs so categorically and absolutely from the will of the American people -- AND, critically, what this says about the quality of our democracy at this point.
Harper agrees with letting Bush attack Vancouver...
Goes to show us the effect of the Internet(s):)
..and how itsa [sic] problem...
What kind of (non) partisan hearing was that!
General, let-me-blow-some-wind-up-your-skirt, Patrioticus: even though others (i.e. moveon.org) said such and such, WE SAY, blah, blah, Whitehouse blah, blah, now speak Sir…
What bovine manure-icus!!
Ms. Huffington usually does a very creditable job, but she slipped up badly on one sentence: "Just as it's not surprising, for instance, that the crime
rate inside the gates of the White House is lower than the rate in NE Washington."
I would not be surprised if Slimy Little Rove didn't pen this superfluous perking of Cat spew....
What General Petraeus didn't say was that the Green Zone Government is prepared to fight to the last American.
The first words out of General Petraeus' mouth were lies.
He said: this is my testimony -- It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.
There is no way this is a true statement. Do you really believe that bush would allow a general to come on LIVE national TV with a report on one of the biggest debacles of all time without having seen the report? Since the numbers in the report don't match reality, it is unlikely that the report was written by anyone with a clue what is really going on in Iraq. Based on that, it probably originated in the White House.
So if General Petraeus lied about the origin/review of the report then the rest of the report is invalid due to a lack of credibility. There is no sense in continuing after the first lie.
It was a beautiful piece of Neocon propaganda and no doubt swayed some of the less educated folks across our Nation. (and in our Senate) Fortunately the majority of us were ready for it and recognize it for what it really is.
Pontius Pilate washed his hands, but even he didn't wash them in blood.
Mordechai Shiblikov says in his comment above that Petraeus was under oath. But the Democrats made a point of NOT putting him under oath, and Ray McGovern was thrown out of the hearing, because he shouted out that Petraeus and Crocker should be put under oath. This is just the same as the Republicans refusal to put Gonzales and others under oath.
Looks like the change the Democrats promised before the 2006 election is the change of party in charge not the change of anything else. After all, they voted more money to continue the war, and, likely, will do it again.
Some democracy we have here!
The US will have to suffer an economic collapse before any significant restructuring of the US government can occur, but if that does happen and if by some miracle (and probably a lot of blood) progressives get a seat at the table in a constitutional convention charged with fashioning a new constitution, it seems one idea worth considering would be to add a fourth, and completely independent, branch of government that is charged with providing reliable information to the population regarding government policies and the economic and social conditions of the society. The corporate media has utterly failed in this regard and should never be trusted again.
Possibly the members of the fourth branch could be elected, with candidates needing a Ph.D. and some experience as university professors or some other background related to a dedication to pursuit of an objective truth, and with some special voter qualifications, possibly including a Ph.D. And representatives could be chosen by field or subject matter, not by geographic location. Just a thought.
I think it's easy for us to forget the real purpose of the MSM.
They don't exisit to tell the truth.
They don't care about democracy.
They are there in our homes and in our faces to sell products. Particularly products that we must be arm-twisted or emotionally blackmailed to believe we need- including the Iraq War.
The media are a business, that's all. They exist to make profits for their parent companies and the sponsors (automobile, insurance, and pharmecuetical companies, cosmetics, dog food, fast food empires, and the like).
The MSM serves those in power, not you and I.
Media provide an echo chambper for the lies that each administration would like to promote to the widest possible audience. Without constant media promotion, those lies would shrivel and die.
Watching jornalists be nothing but stenographers is stomach turning. Advocating for change is work we'll have to continue to do. Most of all , though, we can get better at promoting our own independent media (radio, TV, print, online, and- for those many who not connected electronically: old fashioned person-to-person outreach).
Maybe we should not worry so much about what the MSM is, or is not, doing?
Petraeus controls the lives of thousands of people facing life and death at any minute. What could be more serious than that? But instead of telling the truth, that this bullshit occupation which is now in its fifth year isn't worth any American's life, he chooses to sit in front of Congress, under oath, and blow bloody smoke rings at all of us. This isn't a patriot; this is an advertising man unveiling a new campaign for poisoned Bush Burgers. "Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes!" "Let's put it out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up." The fact that this nation cannot extricate itself from this disaster, that in all probability it will drag on for years and years, is an undeniable sign of a nation on the ropes.