Nothing for the MSM like dumping a little pre-emptive cold water on the Bush administration and the situation in Iraq. Introducing his interview with Vice-President Cheney this morning, ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl claimed: "It would appear that the British announcement [of a partial withdrawal of forces from Iraq] is bad news for the Bush administration, but in the first official reaction from the United States, Vice-President Cheney told ABC News that he thinks that the announcement is actually good news -- a sign of progress in Iraq."
ABC then ran the clip of VP Cheney making his case: "I look at it, and what I see is an affirmation that in parts of Iraq things are going pretty well. I talked to a friend who just the other day had driven from Baghdad down to Basra [in the Shia-dominated south], seven hours. Found the situation dramatically improved from the way it was a year or so ago. Sort of validated the British view that they have made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore afford to reduce their force levels."
Cheney's statement is consistent with the explanation offered by British PM Tony Blair:
"The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad. It is still a difficult and sometimes dangerous place, but many extremists have been arrested or left the city. The reported levels of murder and kidnapping are significantly down."
So why did Karl find it necessary to contradict Mr. Cheney's view in advance, rather than let viewers assess the Vice President's statement for themselves? You don't suppose ABC could have a vested interest in portraying events in Iraq in negative terms, do you?
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course there's a veiled
February 21, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Troika37Of course there's a veiled interest to make sure this war is seen in negative terms. The Dems would never ever want to be caught in a position that required them to acknowledge progress. The British-controlled sections of southern Iraq have been brought under some sense of control. That means their levels of troops (initially designed for combat) can be brought down, as combat has ceased to be a part of their job description.
This is precisely the result the surge is expected to have, and why the ISG recommended a surge in troop levels. God forbid our forces accomplish the same goals as the Brits have in southern Iraq. We wouldn't want them to actually finish what we started now, would we?
There is a monumental difference between withdrawing unilaterally, as the Dems want us to do and withdrawing after securing Baghdad. We now have empirical evidence that secure sectors are possible, and allow for troop levels to be reduces. BZ to the Brits, God save the Queen and all that.
United States - take note: Bad guys gone or dead = troops home victoriously.
Let's go to an old name for f
February 21, 2007 - 11:38 ET by ucLet's go to an old name for fresh perspective >> Paul Wolfowitz, is it possible that the region in Iraq that the Brits have been staying the course in and standing with the newly free Iraqies in has progressed with local Democratic developement far enough that to stay longer than Tony Blair talks of would be to appear as never intended to be as occupiers?
What makes me wondering these
February 21, 2007 - 11:58 ET by BAUHAUSWhat makes me wondering these days is:
What happens if Iraq becomes a success story within the Bush Administration's last year. I mean what if the violence stops and everything goes back to normal. How will the media and the world react?
I personally have this feeling, I can't explain why, but somehow I think 'War in Iraq' is soon 'Peace in Iraq'. If US troops can stop the violence by cracking down the insurgent's supplies the violence automatically stops.
BAUHAUS -Knowing that the lib
February 21, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Mica the MagnificentBAUHAUS -
Knowing that the libs who consume the propaganda of the MSM will quickly absorb the following:
"Iraqi troops take over Iraq. U.S. troops headed home. People go back to work with no pension protection or labor unions. Some say Iraq in worse shape than with the insurgents or Saddam."
"An eighty year old Iraqi said to us that Bush is responsible for the lack of union protection in his country. With no minimum wage, he is forced to feed his family on less than a living wage."
"Bush sucks," he said in his native language. News at 11.
Peace
February 21, 2007 - 15:47 ET by usinkoreaPeace would be a hard thing to sweep under the rug, but never under estimate the ability to the press to find, and obsess over, the dark lining surrounded by a silver cloud. I think we could begin to guess what the coverage might look like if we cast a glance back.
Before Iraq War II, the press could't get enough people in front of the cameras to tell how likely it was that the war would be a long, tough, bloody thing with cargo planes full of bodybags with dead GIs in them.
Then, during the sand storm, it was all our worst fears come true. We were bogged down. We were fighting a conflict we had not war gamed for. The battle plans we had were being thrown out the window, and we were writing a new one haphazzard as we went along.
Then, Baghdad fell and the Hussein government collapsed.
Was the press euphoric?
What did we get for the war being over and less deadly than even optimist had predicted?
We got wall to wall coverage of bleeping looting!!!
They also started to (re)define what the worst case scenerio had always been:
And they have stuck with this idea as the winner to undermine the war effort but more importantly (to them) the Bush administration.
So, they have blown all out of proportion how bad the situation is over there.
Before the war, it was
That didn't happen (yet) so they need to define whatever is going on as the civil war they were really expecting - not really Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis waging open warfare from north to south - east to west as they actually predicted before the war.
The body count of American forces has been fairly small for the number of years the struggle has been going on and historically speaking, and it is MUCH lower than what they told us to expect just from the early months of the war if we did go to war.
But those predictions are buried somewhere never to see the light of day again.
So, if the troop surge (or something else) works under Bush or the next republican president (if they win again), I don't expect kudos from these people.
My guess is --- they would shift attention to Afghanistan and pummel the viewing audience with relentless stories about how screwed up that nation still is after so many years.
Or, they will shift to North Korea.
Or, they will add to the Global Warming crusade a few other domestic "crisis" that deserve so much consideration, there is no time to discuss the positive results in Iraq.
Hilarious.
February 21, 2007 - 12:22 ET by S PHilarious.
Let's see.....Troops going in
February 21, 2007 - 13:01 ET by MassConservativeLet's see.....
Troops going in (surge) is bad !!!!
Troops coming home (British reduce force) is bad !!!!
Does that mean the MSM is now supporting a stay the course approach?
If you "report" the
February 21, 2007 - 17:47 ET by JayTeeIf you "report" the "Details" of the withdrawal by Tony Blair, 5,500 troops are NOT leaving for months, and the 7,500 that are currently there is down from 9,000 from last year. AND...AND..they are leaving because Basara is calm and doing fine.
These small Details, is why the "DRIVE BY" is prefixed to the word MEDIA, they can't report the facts without summarizing them for us dummies. The Media cannot see the details, because they're "Driving by" the Real story at a steady NASCAR rate of 175mph ...and end up making dummies of the Libs that absorb the "drive by" explanation as the real story....minus the detail story.
And the
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
President Abraham Lincoln
The Hufftards are flipping ou
February 21, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Roger the ShrubberThe Hufftards are flipping out over this. They are all over the board, like Stevie Wonder target shooting.
If things are going so well,
February 21, 2007 - 15:47 ET by waka wakaIf things are going so well, why aren't the Brits coming to Baghdad to help us with our "surge"? Why didn't Bush ask Tony for a little extra help?
Of course Bush wanted to ask, but because the unmitigated disaster he created in Iraq is by now even obvious to Tony Blair, there was no point.
Same with the Lithuanians. And the Danish.
Dick's assertion that Britain's phased withdrawal (where have I heard that before?) is evidence of progress is just more rotten meat for you 28 percenters, like "last throes" and "greeted as liberators."
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Unmittigated disaster. Real
February 21, 2007 - 15:53 ET by usinkoreaUnmittigated disaster. Really...
I noted above how interesting it is the opponents have so easily shifted the definition of what an umittigated disaster would look like.
I don't know about the 28% or the 72%, but I never expected Iraq to be a stable, fully functional democracy with a healthy economy and only verbal political strife like in the advanced democracies.
I'm still happy main days of fighting didn't result in way more than the 3,000+ dead American GIs that have been killed over the period of 4 years.
Can you unmittigated disaster people give me an idea of some previous conflict or fall of a dictatorship like Husseins that ended up peachy clean under a time period of 4 years?
talk to the sucker, usinkorea
February 21, 2007 - 16:24 ET by tumbler_2007Tell him-her, usinkorea;
These are the kooks who insisted at the onset that Japan wouldn't pay it's share of the costs (Japan did,) and that bodybags by the tens of thousands were going to be coming home from Iraq, and that we were just going to Iraq for the oil. Many other wanks of that sort. So far they've had to eat crow. The real unmitigated disaster in Iraq's war is that the Democrats are now unable to claim any credit for our successes. That's because they've been praying for our defeat these last three years, to snatch credit away from our President and his friends. (Sniff!) Too bad, cheeky monkeys! Haha!
We never stole the oil; but they conveniently forget that, and if anybody except Rumsfeld had been in charge at D of Def, our dead would have been ten times more, without half the proof of successes.
These hypocrites are now reduced to squealing over those weapons of mass destruction; the missing ones THEY also swore were in Iraq; just before we took out Saddam. They'll NEVER learn!
So the silly waka waka and
February 21, 2007 - 16:09 ET by MightyMouthSo the silly waka waka and his fellow democrats want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. Why? I ask myself. Let's see what might be their motivation:
If we lose, the almighty liberals, can say: "we told you so".
If we lose, the Democrats are sure to regain the White House!
If we lose, GWB will surely go down in history as the "worst president ever".
If we lose, the world will "love" us again. Big bad bully USA.
If we lose we will finally get to raise taxes and take from the filthy rich and give to the filthy poor.
And best of all, with all the mean facist conservatives out of the way, waka waka will finally be able to marry his boyfriend!
Congratulations morons!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
waka - do you ever discuss or do you just smear junk BS?
February 21, 2007 - 16:10 ET by acaiguanawaka - do you ever discuss or do you just smear junk BS?
I'd be glad to discuss with your silliness, but I never see you do that. You just dump and run. I'm gonna ask the administrators whether you have ever posted more than once on any given thread. What do you think?
First, this is the first I ever heard we had Allies in Iraq. I thought Bush was a lone gun 'cowboy'.
Second, you have no more idea about what Bush talks to Tony Blair about than you have about what is in my right pocket. Thanks for this really inane statement, anyway.
Third, this withdrawal follows another withdrawal earlier which is part of the phasing out of outside military aid to the areas of Iraq where the British troops are stationed and turning over security to the Iraqi military. This seems to be going quite well and Britian has been scheduled to reduce its presence for over three years.
Further, that would be number 'many' for you (one, two, three - many), Blair made a speech that said in effect that 5,000 troops would stay. He also noted that none of the troops being withdrawn are combat troops.
So everything you have posted here is crap.
Get it?
Geez, what a waste of good web site space.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Hi, Hater!
February 21, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberHi, Hater!
Hey WAka Wako....you're a vic
February 21, 2007 - 17:51 ET by JayTeeHey WAka Wako....you're a victim of the "Drive BY' report about the British Troops....you can't quote the number (troops being withdrawn), the Date they are leaving (It aint' soon) and how many will NOT be withdrawn because the will be at the local Airport standing by.
Liberals can't quote the Details, because they media dosen't give it to them..
Ignorance is BLISS.
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
President Abraham Lincoln
Further Bad News
February 21, 2007 - 16:56 ET by acumenIn further bad news for the Bush Administration, France today signalled it would send a delegation ahead of the planned British troop reduction to surrender to the defeated terrorists in Basra.