About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media ignore memo from U.S. Embassy on deteriorating situation in Iraq

June 19, 2006 3:04 pm ET

SUMMARY: On June 18, The Washington Post published a cable sent from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq that detailed the deteriorating conditions observed in Baghdad in recent months. Despite the clear significance of the document, the media have almost entirely ignored its publication.

18 Comments

On Page B1 of its June 18 edition, The Washington Post published a cable sent to Washington, D.C., from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq that detailed the deteriorating conditions, increased sectarian tensions and heightened dangers observed in Baghdad in recent months. The cable appeared to have been approved by Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and was dated June 12*, five days after the killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and one day before President Bush's surprise six-hour visit to the country, during which Bush touted the progress there. But despite the clear significance of the document -- and the contrast it presented with Bush's upbeat comments -- the media have almost entirely ignored its publication.

The June 12 cable, addressed to the U.S. secretary of state, focused on the firsthand experiences of the embassy's Iraqi employees and, as Post columnist Al Kamen wrote, outlined "the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government." Indeed, the document painted a dire picture of daily life in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, at one point citing an Iraqi newspaper editor's assertion that "ethnic cleansing ... is taking place in almost every Iraqi province." Following are several examples from Editor & Publisher's list of the other "troubling reports" included in the cable:

  • One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.
  • Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamist and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."
  • Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May...."some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.
  • Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "is punishing populations as Saddam did."
  • The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.
  • "Another employee tells us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"
  • Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without.

The U.S. Embassy's depiction of the situation on the ground in Iraq provides a stark contrast to Bush's account of his brief experience in the country. On June 14, one day after returning from his brief trip to the country, Bush held a press conference in which he described himself as "inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq." Bush also noted that the "progress is hard to see" and cited the "sense of hopefulness" he had observed there. He said of the Iraqi people, "I did have a strong sense that they're really happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein, to a person. They believe he wrecked their country in more ways than one. It was clear he wrecked their infrastructure. And it is clear that he wrecked a lot of lives. But I didn't have that great sense of people being so bound up in bitterness that they weren't willing to think positively about the future."

On the same day that the Post published the cable, White House press secretary Tony Snow made the rounds on the Sunday news talk shows and discussed the issue at length. On the June 18 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked him about the kidnapping of two U.S. soldiers and whether the White House believes Iraq is at a "turning point." In response, Snow played down the report of the kidnapping, stating, "[I]t's a funny war because ... that becomes the big story, rather than the fact that you've got almost 60,000 forces on the ground going after bad guys. We've apprehended hundreds of bad guys since Zarqawi died." But despite Snow's repetition of the common White House argument that the media have ignored the progress being made in Iraq, Schieffer failed to mention the Khalilzad cable.

Likewise, in an interview on the June 18 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Snow criticized the media's failure to cover the "incremental progress" being achieved in Iraq. He said, "[S]omebody can blow up a car in a marketplace in Baghdad and get headlines the world over. ... And that suddenly becomes the perception of everything that's going on in the country." Snow went on to highlight "electricity generation, what's going on with the sort of supplies and basics" as other "metrics you can use to measure progress." But at no point did host Chris Wallace note the U.S. Embassy's dire portrait of the conditions in Iraq, which had not simply highlighted the ongoing violence and kidnappings, but also described problems relating to the cost and availability of fuel, the scarcity of electricity, and the increasing social restrictions.

Further, in his remarks on Iraq during the June 18 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) commended Khalilzad's work as the former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of the country in 2001. But host Tim Russert failed to take the opportunity to note Khalilzad's current appraisal of the spiraling conditions faced by Iraqis.

By contrast, during an interview on CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer challenged Snow's criticism of the war coverage by noting the June 12 cable, which he described as "very, very grim" and "a pretty damning indictment of the current situation." Blitzer said, "I know that many have complained that the news media is only focusing in on the negative, but here the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad paints a pretty stark picture of what's going on right now." In response, Snow argued that the embassy's account was outdated. "Well, that's taken in mid-May," he said. "Here we are, a month later, and I just told you, you've got 50,000 Iraqi troops that are now focusing on those problem areas in Baghdad."

The near absence of coverage extended to print outlets as well. A Lexis-Nexis search of U.S. newspapers and wire services failed to turn up a single follow-up story on the Post's publication of the memo, nor a mention of it in the numerous June 19 articles on Iraq.

*Correction: The original version of this item incorrectly stated that the memo from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq was dated June 6, one week before President Bush's Baghdad visit. In fact, the memo was dated June 12, one day before Bush traveled to Iraq. 
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Slade (June 19, 2006 3:18 pm ET)
         

      "We'll stand down as soon as they stand up."

      What if the Iraqi's never stand up?

      Has anyone ever asked Bush that?

      Sounds like we'll be there forever if the Iraqi's never stand up. Anyone ever thought of that.

      According to Bush & Co., it looks like the Iraqi's control our fate, control our military and control our policy. We're on the puppet strings.

      So again, what if the Iraqi's never stand up?

      To all of you who supported this war: Ever feel like you've been cheated?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 19, 2006 4:08 pm ET)
           

        by building (as of 2004) FOURTEEN 'enduring' bases in Iraq. Make no mistake, we're not going anywhere anytime soon.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by hogprint (June 20, 2006 12:57 pm ET)
             

          Last time I checked we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea and Bosnia. The only full pull out was Vietnam and Somalia.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (June 19, 2006 6:27 pm ET)
           

        Are you MAD?!?!

        One does not ask questions of Dear Leader! Especially not HARD questions!

        You are in serious need of "re-education." Remain calm. Some men in white coats will be with you shortly.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 19, 2006 3:19 pm ET)
         

      Everything will be all right, now. These aren't the droids you're looking for...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by defkon_4 (June 19, 2006 3:49 pm ET)
         

      For the media, it's hard to pay attention to a vitally important document like this when you are too busy screaming "BUSH IS BACK!!! BUSH IS THE COMEBACK KID!" at the top of your lungs.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (June 19, 2006 3:58 pm ET)
           

        Are the American people really so gullible to be swayed by a simple trip and a media blitz? Does the trip erase all that they knew to be true prior to this trip? I would like someone in the media who is hyping this “comeback” to tell us what has actually changed about the situation due to his trip to Iraq. I would contend nothing has changed so why are people pretending otherwise.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 19, 2006 4:20 pm ET)
           

        I noticed the administration was pretty careful about not making too much of the death of al Zarqawi. Of course, it makes complete sense. Why bother - and be exposed to the associated risks - when the media is so willing?

        Has anyone who's read the full cable noted the tone of the final paragraph? It's so understated as to seem almost seem sarcastic. My impression was this..."Our excellent staff is experiencing some bad sh*t...and if it keeps up, they might just start making this true stuff up." Ya' think the author was a wee concerned about upsetting someone back at State?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by THEmole (June 19, 2006 4:16 pm ET)
         

      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (June 19, 2006 4:35 pm ET)
         

      ...if we as a nation deigned to tell the truth on ourselves. By not admitting what is really happening make it worse when it does come to light. What if, god forbid, the embassy was wiped out. What would the media say about the memo then? Would the NYT start with mea culpas again.

      We're adults, aren't we? I guess the MSM and BushieCo doesn't think so.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by THEmole (June 19, 2006 4:52 pm ET)
           

        think, or realize, they are adults. Most seem to just want, and as a result see, flowers and sunshine.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by greenbug4189 (June 19, 2006 7:40 pm ET)
         

      I noticed how the MSM has ignored the memo of the real situation in Iraq. If not for the blogs I never would have known. If not for the blogs, we never would have know about most of this stuff. All we would know is how wonderful shrub is. don't you love lapdogs.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (June 20, 2006 12:05 pm ET)
         

      be quoting some unnamed source, but when it comes to things like this and the downing street memo, which are actual government documents, they are ignored. and why is the common factor always that these documents are contradictory of the bush administration's statements?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (June 20, 2006 1:26 pm ET)
         

      Christopher Hichens had a good take on this...

      It's OK to take off your Tin Foil Hats...

      "But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden or arcane or occult knowledge... it is remarkable for "its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.

      Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized."... Paul Wolfowitz allowed that, though there were many reasons to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein, the legal minimum basis for it was to be sought, inside the U.S. government bureaucracy and at the United Nations, in the unenforced resolutions concerning WMD. At the time, this mild observation was also hailed as a full confession of perfidy.

      I am now forced to wonder: Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy, and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat Saddam "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof. The British attorney general—who has no jurisdiction in these 50 states—was worried that "regime change" alone would not be a sufficient legal basis. One appreciates his concern. But the existence of the Saddam regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."...

      How odd that the American left, when it is not busy swallowing the unpunctuated words of the CIA, follows this with another helping of wisdom from the most reactionary institution of the British state.

      If such a "left" is not careful, it will end up consoling itself in futile bitterness and resentment in the way that the Old Right used to do: by brooding on the hellish manner in which FDR told the Japanese to "bring it on" at Pearl Harbor. (The anti-war right of today, led by Pat Buchanan, was raised and nurtured on this very fantasy, as were Gore Vidal and the other Charles Lindbergh fans.) I am in favor of taking such theories at face value, as a thought experiment, to see how they pan out....The plain evidence of this hope is what keeps the conspiracy theory alive...

      Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 20, 2006 3:57 pm ET)
           

        IF the Downing Street memo were all we had Hitch would have a point. They arent so he doesnt. There was the Office of Special Plans. Made specifically to stovepipe Chalabis defectors assertions to the White House without the annoying caveats by the CIA that they were liars that couldnt pass a polygraph and whenever they gave info that could be checked out it never checked out. There are Bush's lies and deceptions like the aluminum tubes, Niger/Uranium, the drones that were NEVER going to spread biotoxins on the West Coast according to our own Air Force, and so on. Nice try by Hitch to portray the memo as something that was written by a junior notetaker but the memo was of the top government officials in Britian the man who SAID the facts and evidence were being fixed around policy is our version of a cabinet level official who had JUST come back from Washington talking to Rumsfeld and several other cabinet officials here and NO ONE in the British government has challenged the accuracy of the memo even when specifically asked.

        Is there anyone who didnt know Bush had already decided to topple Saddam? Well Bush was certainly saying he hadnt made up his mind in the fall of 2002. Of course it is no suprise to either Hitch or me that Bush is a shameless liar but that is a fairly seemless way for Hitch to gloss over the fact. Hitch is certainly doing a journeymans job appologizing for Bush, better than most rightwingers which he isnt. This is not however a justification worth its weight in salt just the best he could do. Good try by Hitch, no traction

        Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (June 20, 2006 1:27 pm ET)
         

      Was out of Slate online. May 2005 I believe.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by deepblade (June 21, 2006 1:45 am ET)
         

      I watched on C-SPAN while Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) explained how the American invasion was just the cat's meow for the women of Iraq.

      Rep. Deborah Pryce: If I were asked to give one good reason why we should stay in Iraq, I would tell you to stay. We need to stay for the women. Well, I saw women of diverse ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic classes. They were empowering each other with education, with hope, with friendship, just like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony....
      Cable: ``...A female in the PAS cultural section is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats...'' I guess Rep. Pryce missed this sort of thing on her tour. But the media is not bothering to fact-check the pro-war speeches against the cable.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.