In case you hadn't noticed (and I'm sure you have), Gen. David Petraeus is playing the press like crazy in an effort to push public sentiment toward deferring the July, 2011 troop withdrawal. For the past two weeks it's nearly been relentless, but this weekend he escalated the PR war.

First, the newest reports of "oil deposits" in Afghanistan -- vast, rich, yummy oil deposits. That's the first course for what he served up on Meet the Press Sunday with David Gregory's assistance, of course.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about U.S. troops. I asked you before, when we talked about this July deadline of next year, how stifling is the, the concept of this deadline and this Washington debate to what you're trying to do here?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I don't find it that stifling. I'm not bowed over by, you know, the knowledge that July 2011 is out there. In fact, the president has been very clear, Vice President Biden's been very clear as well, more recently, that this is a date when a process begins that is conditions based. And as the conditions permit, we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and to security forces and, and in various governmental institutions, and that enables a "responsible drawdown of our forces"...

That sounds to me like the sound of a big middle finger being raised at the promise Petraeus made along with all of the other generals last December to the President -- that a timeline where the troops started coming home in July, 2011 was one they found reasonable and could adhere to. It's especially interesting that he would say Biden approves, given that Biden has been the squeaky wheel against any surge or other buildup in Afghanistan. Regardless, a promise is a promise.

I quote General Petraeus verbatim:

Inside the Oval Office, Obama asked Petraeus, "David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in eighteen months?"

"Sir, I'm confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame," Petraeus replied.

"Good. No problem," the president said. "If you can't do the things you say you can in eighteen months then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?"

"Yes, sir, in agreement," Petraeus said.

New York Times picked up this juicy quote from another point in the interview:

General Petraeus, who took over last month after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired by President Obama, said he believed he would be given the time and material necessary to prevail here. He expressed that confidence despite the fact that nearly every phase of the war is going badly — and despite the fact that the American public has turned against it.

“The president didn’t send me over here to seek a graceful exit,” the general said from his office at NATO headquarters in downtown Kabul. “My marching orders are to do all that is humanly possible to help us achieve our objectives.”

All of the shiny pretty minerals and yummy oil in Afghanistan don't make up for the lost lives there. Petraeus was either talking smack to the President -- his Commander-in-Chief -- or else he's talking smack to the press. He is, by all accounts, excellent at stroking and cultivating reporters. Just look at the job he did on David Gregory, who was more than willing to shovel handy verbs like "stifling" at the good General for his own brand of spin.

These are trial balloons. They're intended to measure the public will for extending Afghanistan. They're also intended to pressure the Afghans into getting with it and taking their country back. But if we don't register our disapproval, he might just get away with it.

Continue reading »

On a day where Republican Senators such as our almost-President McCain have made the rounds of talk shows doing their level best to undermine the July 2011 withdrawal deadline from Afghanistan, Fox News wants you to know that they think we should still be moving full steam ahead in Iraq.

Vice President Joe Biden visited Iraq today and pressed Iraqi leadership to push toward shoring up their government as the US troop withdrawal continues on schedule from that country.

For some in Iraq and in the US, Iraqi violence and instability is seen as a sign that the US should not withdraw its presence. The fear is that sectarian violence will overwhelm Iraq's wobbly democracy. It's not entirely without foundation; however, sectarian violence has been a part of Iraqi history before the US inserted itself and it will be again, with or without a US military presence.

This is clearly not what Fox News wishes to convey to its readers and viewers. While Vice President Biden was in Iraq, several mortars were fired inside Baghdad's green zone. The green zone includes the US Embassy, the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi Prime Minister's offices. It is hardly unusual for mortars to be fired there, but look at how it was reported by Fox News:

Rockets were fired at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad while Vice President Biden visits Iraq.

The rockets were fired at the embassy, located inside the International Zone.

Vice President Biden is currently in the country to meet with U.S. troops and talk to Iraqi political leaders.

It isn't until the fourth paragraph (below the fold) that they get to the truth of the matter:

"According to Embassy Public Affairs there was a small explosion in the International Zone," a U.S. Embassy spokesperson said. "The incident is being investigated. There were no injuries or property damage."

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that Fox News distorted the story to make it sound as though those mortars were specifically fired at the US Embassy while our Vice President and his wife were there. It is only one example of many and points to a larger and far more orchestrated effort to use the press for the express purpose of stoking support to continue a war we never should have started in the first place.

One of the more interesting paragraphs in the Fox article mentions 2 unnamed soldiers whose statement (as reported) leave a distinct impression those rounds fell inside embassy walls:

Two soldiers inside the compound reported there was an impact from the incoming fire.

Are you pissed off yet? Worried? Concerned for the safety of our Vice President and angry about mortar rounds falling on protected diplomatic property?

Don't be. It's a carefully worded non-statement. Here's what it says, if anyone takes the time to actually read it: Two soldiers felt an impact from mortar fire in the area but not in the embassy.

Until we are actually out of there (and out of Afghanistan) there will be two recurrent themes which the press will play for all they're worth, regardless of whether they are considered "liberal" or "conservative".

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (596)

PLAYS: (456)

Embed

On This Week with Jake Tapper, Rahm Emanuel says that the Afghanistan withdrawal deadline is really more of a guideline:

TAPPER: Your portfolio is a lot larger than just energy and the oil spill. I want to move on the Afghanistan. We recently have two grim milestones in Afghanistan. More than 1,000 U.S. service personnel have died in there in service to their country. And this war became the longest in our nation's history.

EMANUEL: Yes.

TAPPER: The president set a July 2011 deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal. But there is some confusion as to what it means, exactly. In Jon Alter's new book, here's Vice President Biden, he says, quote: "At the conclusion of an interview in his West Wing office, Biden was adamant. 'In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out, be on it,' Biden said as he wheeled to leave the room, late for lunch with the president. He turned at the door and said once more, 'Bet on it.'"

But here is General Petraeus testifying before Congress this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, CENTCOM: ... said that it was very important that it not imply a race for the exits, a search for the light to turn off or anything like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So what exactly does the July 2011 deadline mean? Is it going to be a whole lot of people moving out, definitely, as Vice President Biden says? Or could it be more nuanced, as General Petraeus says, maybe just a couple of people leaving one province?

EMANUEL: Well, no, everybody knows there's a firm date. And that firm date is a date -- deals with the troops that are part of the surge, the additional 30,000. What will be determined at that date or going into that date will be the scale and scope of that reduction.

But there will be no doubt that that's going to happen. And I know actually -- I look at both of those, and they're not inconsistent. But remember where we were on Afghanistan policy, that war had waxed and waned. And there really hadn't been a focus on how to bring that war to -- and the effort (INAUDIBLE), even with al Qaeda and Taliban, to a point given what was going on in Iraq.

The president raised the troop level and civilian participation to 30,000. This was creating a window of opportunity for Afghanistan. We are now at that point in Afghanistan, and in fact for the first time in eight years, nine years, they're actually meeting their police recruitment requirements as well as their army recruitment requirements. So they themselves can take more and more responsibility for the security of that country.

Second is we're also -- about a half of al Qaeda has been eliminated in this last 18 months. So we're taking the pressure to al Qaeda, taking the pressure to the Taliban. And we're making progress as it relates to, as you know, after the president's meeting with President Karzai, went back to Afghanistan, held a peace jurga.

There is also progress being made on that side. All of this has been predictable in the sense that we knew once we created this window of opportunity, we were going to focus on what are the resources that are necessary, where are we going to be making progress. But the July '11 date, as stated by the president, that's not moving. That's not changing. Everybody agreed on that date. General Petraeus did. Secretary Gates did. As also Admiral Mullen agreed.

And the goal is to take this opportunity, focus on what needs to get done, and then on July 2011, is to begin the reduction of...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But it could be any...

EMANUEL: ... troops.

TAPPER: But it could be any number of people.
EMANUEL: That's what you'll evaluate based on the conditions on the ground. That is -- but what had to happen prior to that was having a date that gave everybody, the NATO, international forces, as well as Afghanistan, that sense of urgency to move.

As a follow up to Steve's post:

Media Matters:

On the July 19 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer apologized for her false assertion -- documented by Media Matters for America -- regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq.

On the July 17 edition of the program, Sawyer said that Reid "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." In fact, by extending the Senate session throughout the night, Reid did not "vow to filibuster," as Sawyer reported; rather, he highlighted the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal. Indeed, it was the Republicans who opposed the Democrats' effort to end debate on the legislation and move to a simple majority vote. In her on-air statement, Sawyer clarified that Reid had actually "held the all-night debate to protest the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans. ... You wrote me. You were right. I was wrong. I apologize."

Credit where credit is due...when was the last time you saw a major media outlet admit they got it wrong?

Sorry, I'm having some connectivity issues, otherwise I'd have gotten this up sooner...

WaPo:

Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq.[..]

As members cast their votes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hurried between private meetings with lawmakers in their Capitol Hill offices to make the administration's case for the war.

On a trip to Afghanistan, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the U.S. "can do whatever it is we want to do to have a dialogue about how to fight this enemy. But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."

It's disappointing to say the least...however, now we have these Republicans (and honorary Republicans, like Joe Lieberman) on record.  I'd suggest contacting them to ask them how they feel about not representing their constituency. Update: "Don’t miss Harold Meyerson’s take on the WINOs this morning.  Priceless."

Newsie8200's Penndit: Media News Monday

Suburban Guerrilla: Don't leave elections to GOP pols. They don't really don't want people to vote...

The Satirical Political Report: Bushies revoke cloning ban; claim they 'need' another Zarqawi

The Enigmatic Paradox: If Bush can claim toppling Saddam was “Mission Accomplished,” Democrats should frame the forthcoming (mid-term elections) troop withdrawal as “America's Victory” and take every opportunity to remind voters how the Bush administration misled the country into supporting the war.

The Reality-Based Community: Another Bushista plot...

Liberal Country Fan: "This site aims to provide a home and a voice to us Roosevelt-lovin' Rednecks."