WORRIED AT THE WAPO?

by Jed Babbin

Yesterday, I posted an article on HumanEvents.com pointing out the absurd bias in the Washington Post's Military Correspondent Tom Ricks’s story about Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s March 26 report on his trip to Iraq. In it, I pointed out how Ricks had totally inverted the McCaffrey report to fit his own anti-war narrative. My piece apparently struck a nerve.

Last evening, Ricks sent me this e-mail:

Subject: A comment on yours

News isn't a proportional relationship--that is, one paragraph deep in a report may contain the nugget of a story, and hundreds of other pages may not be worth a mention. In my view, given General McCaffrey's past optimism, the news here was his "problems" section. Also, when I pointed out to him the discrpeancy in the tone of different parts of the report, he told me that he wrote that section with his head, but the later more optimistic parts with his heart.

At any rate, if I were interested in misprepresentation, why would I have the Post make sure to put the entire report on-line, and have a notice to that effect at the end of the print story that encouraged people to read the whole thing?

Best,
Tom Ricks
Military Correspondent
The Washington Post
rickst@washpost.com

Here’s my response:

News isn't proportional, but reporting is about facts, not fitting something into your narrative. Your piece is about 663 words, and from the first sentence to the last -- with only two sentences I can find intervening to show McCaffrey's actual assessment -- your go on and on with freighted words about how hopeless the whole enterprise is.

If you were reporting and not commenting politically, you should have made clear McCaffrey's conclusions:

1. Since Petraeus arrived, the situation on the ground has improved "clearly and measurably"'

2. We can still achieve the president's objectives of a stable Iraq not producing terrorists and committed to a law-based government; and 3. Most importantly -- and contrary to what the Dems are doing in Congress -- "[W]e need a last powerful effort to provide US leaders on the ground -- the political support, economic reconstruction resources and the military strength it requires to succeed."

You chose sides in "Fiasco." Why not just admit it? What has Downie said about this? Who reviewed it before it went out? Has Downie decided to let your readers know that the White House is disputing the truth of your report?

Let's send this to the deans of the top five journalism schools and see what they say about it. And let's stand you and me up in front of a town hall group in Colorado Springs or St. Louis and see who is believed. How does the Post justify this obvious strong bias? Best, Jed Babbin.

Jed Babbin
Editor
Human Events

This is what the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS and the rest of the politically active media do when caught: obfuscate. Will the editors of the Washington Post ever hear of the White House’s disparagement of the Ricks report, or of the actual import of McCaffrey’s words? Don’t bet on it.

GOP STICK TO THEIR GUNS ON IRAQ

By Howard Fineman

Despite the loss of Congress, an unpopular president and public weariness over the war in Iraq, Republicans are marching to same old tune.

March 31, 2007 - “The war,” Sen. Mitch McConnell told me last week, “is the reason you are speaking to the Republican leader, not the majority leader.” Yet McConnell and his fellow Republicans in Congress have chosen, nearly unanimously, to stick with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in a confrontation over the Democrats’ proposal to tie $100 billion in Iraq funding to a timetable for withdrawal. “The war is a difficult issue for my party, which is a statement of the obvious,” he said. But the goal remains the same: “to establish a stable government in Iraq” that can be an ally in the “war on terror.” And so it came to pass that the Leonidas of Louisville led the Spartans—47 senators and 198 House members who voted against the Dems—to Thermopylae (or at least spring break).

Since self-sacrifice for the sake of principle is rare in Congress, you have to ask: are Republicans marching to glory? Or, in Barbara Tuchman’s stinging phrase, is this a March of Folly? Sen. Evan Bayh, a hawkish Democrat turned war critic, thinks the more apt screen reference is “Blazing Saddles.” “You know the movie scene: the guy turns a gun on himself and shouts, ‘Stop or I’ll shoot!’” With presidential approval ratings at historic lows, with voters supporting a timetable for withdrawal by a clear majority, with the GOP’s brand name melting faster than an Alaskan glacier, what could McConnell & Co. be thinking?

Short answer: whatever Rove tells them to. The Boy Genius faces subpoenas and an antagonistic press, but Republicans up for re-election in 2008—including McConnell, 17 other senators and the party’s declared presidential contenders—have not found, or even seriously searched for, an alternative to Rove’s “wartime commander in chief” theory of post-9/11 politics.

The GOP survival strategy rests—not unreasonably—on the hope that Democrats fall to squabbling over competing House and Senate versions of a funding bill. Republicans will argue that Congress is not able, and constitutionally barred, from a lead role in the war. And they’ll decry the pork-barrel spending the Dems used to grease passage of their plans. Rove, meanwhile, is talking up internal polls that purport to show an uptick in public optimism about Iraq. Bush, on the road this week, plans to argue that the surge is working and tout the “new realism” of the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. With not the least bit of irony—let alone shame—Republicans will contend that they care more about the soldiers, the sordid evidence at Walter Reed notwithstanding. They will unveil an online “countdown” clock showing the days allegedly left until money runs out for the troops—a made-up number in the world’s capital of flexible arithmetic.

But, at their core, Republicans will rely on Rove’s argument that emerged after 9/11: that the GOP, led by Bush, does not flinch from war; that the war on terror is unlimited in space and time; and that those who think otherwise are misguided, weak-kneed or naive enablers of the enemy. Democrats, McConnell says, wrote a bill that has a “surrender date for Iraq in it.” He professes a lack of concern for polls that show his own approval rating in Kentucky at 46 percent, and the president’s at 43 percent: “Kentucky is not Berkeley. We have Fort Campbell, the home of the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. I would doubt that an antiwar effort would get much resonance in a very patriotic, pro-military state like mine.” But even in Kentucky, there’s a limit to patience. The Screaming Eagles may not be able to rescue him.

THE U.N. CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT

The worthless United Nations continues to be useless. Iran goes into Iraqi waters and kidnaps 15 British sailors, one of them a woman, and the best they can do is to express "grave concern." Oh wow! Grave concern! I'm sure that really curled some beards in Iran. The U.N. originally intended to "deplore" the hostage-taking, but Russia objected. And here we thought that Putin was mad at Iran for not paying its bills! I guess not.
Face it. The U.N.'s response to this naked aggression shows that the organization serves no practical purpose and should be downgraded to a Sunday afternoon tea society.

Here you have an open-and-shut case of a rogue, dictatorial regime kidnapping and holding hostage innocent soldiers...soldiers that were not in Iranian waters when they were apprehended. The Brits have the GPS data to prove it. One of the sailors is a woman, making the situation all the more outrageous. On top of all this, Iran is parading the soldiers on TV...in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

And what does the UN do? Nothing. Why? Because the UN is anti-American, and that makes it anti-Brit. It's time for not only the United States to pull out of the United Nations but for us to kick them out of the United States. Let's form another international organization composed of countries with elected governments that adhere to principles of economic freedom and guaranteed rights for their citizens. The UN? Give it Haiti. The two deserve each other.

The left always tells us we need the U.N. as a place for countries to settle international disputes. Tell me just one international dispute the UN has settled! It's a sounding board for third-world anti-Americanism. Nothing more.

THE SENATE VOTES FOR AL-QAEDA

The Senate approved a bill yesterday calling for the surrender of U.S. forces in Iraq within a year. The bill, has no chance of becoming law. Bush says he will veto it. On the other hand, since there's no abortion or stem cell research provisions in the bill ... who knows? If he does veto the bill there is no chance for an override. Islamic fascism, it seems has plenty of friends on Capitol Hill. Knowing that Joe Lieberman would never vote for such a travesty, you may be wondering what Republicans went along with this nonsense. The answer is (of course) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith from Oregon (who? me neither.)

Check out this quote from Patty Murray, who managed the bill: "Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do, and now it's time to start bringing them home." It is? Well then I am sure the Democrats will have no problem cutting off funding for the war. That will bring them home, right? Well, evidently not. Only an artificial deadline that will never become law will do, I guess.

So what's wrong with all this? Imagine you're a solider serving in Iraq...and you turn on the TV and see that your own Senator has voted to surrender in Iraq. Don't you think that might dent morale just a bit? And what about the terrorists? They will be more emboldened than ever, knowing that they're winning the war in the arena of public opinion.

You do know our efforts were showing success in Iraq, don't you? This is the most dangerous situation for the Democrat Party. Any measure of success in Iraq costs Democrat Part votes in 2008. Can't let that happen. For God's sake, bring the troops home before they can actually succeed!

THE HEARINGS ABOUT NOTHING CONTINUE

The plot thickens in the U.S. Attorney firing non-scandal. Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says the Attorney General was involved in the firings, contradicting his boss. Who cares, right? Bored Democrats with no agenda, that's who. And they show no signs of letting up. Once again, the Democrats are looking for somebody's head in the administration...and that somebody is Alberto Gonzales. Get a nice resignation here and victory will be declared. Then it's off to get the leftist pro-Democrat media to bite on another non-scandal.

Yesterday Kyle Sampson, the AG's former chief of staff said he discussed the firings with his boss on two occasions. Gonzales said at a press conference 17 days ago that he was not involved in the firings. Gotcha! The attorney general is obviously a liar that must be fired. New York Senator Chuck Schumer said Gonzales' credibility has been shattered. But remember, Democrats only worry about credibility when they're talking about Republicans. Fellow Democrats don't count. Just ask Bill Clinton or Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.

But a little further down in the coverage of Sampson's testimony yesterday is this little nugget: "To my knowledge, no US attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a particular reason." In other words, there's nothing to the Democrats' allegations and never was. Is this witch hunt what people voted for in the last election? Somebody down at the DNC thinks so.

Oh..and did you know President Bush was going to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys, just as his predecessor had done? He only decided to fire eight. An inconsequential fact.

THE NEVER-ENDING NON-SCANDAL

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says the 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired over politics. That is, they didn't support President Bush's policies the way they administration thought they should. This is the message that will be delivered in testimony today. Expect it to make big news, but it really isn't. This has to be the biggest non-scandal to hit Washington since, well..the last biggest non-scandal: the Valerie Plame affair. God forbid they should tackle something important like the coming crash of this stupid Social Security system we have, or doing something about the Mexican invasion. Eight U.S. Attorneys get fired for political reasons. Who cares? These are political jobs. These are positions just like the ones in the White House...political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the president. Bush could fire them all just for kicks one day. Wait....Bill Clinton already did that once. Nobody cared when George W. Bush replaced his chief of staff, did he? Nope...his choice.

And so here we go...more testimony and more calls for Alberto Gonzales resignation. His former chief of staff will testify on the Hill today over what he knew and when he knew it. The "investigation" is being led by liberal Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says nothing will stop his hearings, not even Gonzales' resignation.

Why? Because he's hit a political goldmine. The Democrats have the Republicans on the ropes over nothing. They simply invented a scandal out of thin air and the media has gone along for the ride.