York column compounded Wash. Post reporters' misrepresentation of their own interview
An August 3 column in The Hill by Byron York cited a Washington Post article in which reporters Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza misrepresented their own interview with Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) by claiming Clyburn told them that a "generally positive" report on the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, would be "a real big problem" for Democrats. York cited the article to support his contention that Democratic leaders in Congress are "invested in U.S. failure" in Iraq.
In fact, Clyburn was responding to a question about what Democrats would do if Petraeus recommended continuing the so-called "surge" of forces in Iraq. The question posed by Balz was, "What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, 'This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it'?" Clyburn responded: "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." He added, "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that" -- a comment ignored by York's column as well as Cillizza and Balz's article.
From the July 30 "PostTalk" interview of Clyburn on washingtonpost.com, video of which is available at the website:
BALZ: I think there's been an assumption that when General Petraeus comes in in September with his report, that it would either be a kind of a mixed bag -- some progress, some problems -- or perhaps even a gloomier report, that this is not going well. There's now some signs -- we're hearing it that things -- that folks on the ground think that there are some signs of real progress.
What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We're as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I've got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I'm certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.
The July 30 Post article on the interview -- written by the reporters who conducted it -- left out a key element of Balz's question to Clyburn in summarizing the above exchange:
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
In removing Balz's actual question, the article suggested that Clyburn's comment was a response to the lead-up to Balz's question about the potential for a "more generally positive report" from Petraeus, rather than a response to the question itself.
York's column picked up on the Post's omission:
This week the paper reported that many Democrats "have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad." But now, the Post continued, "there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive."
And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be "a real big problem for us."
Again, by ignoring the question Balz asked about whether the U.S. should "back away" from its current strategy in Iraq, York presented Clyburn's "big problem" remark as a response to what Balz described in the article as potentially "generally positive" news from Petraeus.
York went on to write that Clyburn was asserting that a "generally positive" report from Petraeus would be bad for Democrats in terms of electoral politics:
Clyburn's comments are the flip side of what [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV] said in April when he declared, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, "Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle." As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face "extinction" while Democrats pick up more seats. American success in Iraq could mess all of that up.
York's assertion is based on at least two falsehoods. The first is the assumption -- borrowed from the Post -- that Clyburn was responding to a question about "positive" news when he said that "would be a real big problem." Second, it assumes that Clyburn was talking about electoral politics, when, in fact, Clyburn was referring to keeping his party united and maintaining the support of more conservative Democrats on matters relating to Iraq. Clyburn said, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us."
As Media Matters for America has noted, numerous media figures have misrepresented Clyburn's remarks to suggest that Clyburn was asserting that good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, such as National Review's Cliff May, who misrepresented Clyburn's remarks in an op-ed titled "Good News Is Bad News: At least it is for politicians who have bet on America's defeat."
From Byron York's August 3 column in The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are betting the surge will fail.
It's as simple as that. If Bush wins his bet, Iraq will be a better place, the Middle East will be a better place, and America will be a safer place.
But Reid and Pelosi lose if Bush wins. Given the position they have staked out for themselves, the best possible outcome is for Gen. David Petraeus to give a downbeat report on the surge when he comes before Congress in September. That would give tremendous momentum to those who want the quickest possible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
It's the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.
That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.
This week the paper reported that many Democrats "have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad." But now, the Post continued, "there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive."
And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be "a real big problem for us."
Clyburn's comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, "Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle." As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face "extinction" while Democrats pick up more seats. American success in Iraq could mess all of that up.
The Corporate Media remains adamant that nothing Dems do can be good. It is their good fortune in this instance that rather than having to, as often they must, purely invent the words, they need only distort them to convey their message.
Still a lie, and a dammed lie.
Conley, it may be a lie, but it's one of the lies that comforts a certain segment of our Fellow Americans.
As long as the media continue to frame the trashing of human lives, money, and civil rights as a strength, those trying to fight for genuine American values will be portrayed as weak or unpatriotic.
If true "STRENGTH" comes from taking up arms and plunging into battle, what does it tell us of the NeoCons that so very few of them have shown this "strength"?
It tells us all we need to know.
True strength comes from ordering other people into battle.
- If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that - Clyburn
A question or a statement?
Statement.
Lets face it - Bush got us into this war with lies, ignorance and arrogance. He has effectively murdered 3650 of our troop. At the same time, he gave Bin Laden and all the extremist muslims the greatest propaganda victory in history, proving to muslims worldwide that we are their enemy, for our christian army invaded a muslim nation - Iraq. Meanwhile Bin-Laden is still free. And of course Democracy in the mid east gave us a maniac president in Iran, intent on building a nuclear bomb. Why did this guy win Iran's Presidency - because we invaded their neighbor - Iraq, and scared their populace into voting for an extremist.
Even more of a disaster then Iraq, where the Iraqi govt took the month off, while we send more troops for longer periods to do and die doing the job the Iraqis refuse to do, is the situation in nuclear armed pakistan. We gave Bin Laden a great training ground for Jihadists in Iraq, and now we have daily bombings in Pakistan. Only one man, Musharrif stands between Jidhadists taking over pakistan.
The real behind the scenes picture is that George Bush is a mental lightweight who simply lets Cheney dictate whatever he wants. Together they represent a disaster for not only America, but the whole world, including peace loving Muslims. The recent visit by the new English prime minister, Gordon Brown, was to tell Bush that England(our only significant ally in Iraq) will be removing many of their troops this year from Iraq. And of course, Tony Blair stepped down, effectively resigning his prime ministership, rather then seeing his party trounced in the next elections for having stood with Bush, and been conned with the lies about WMDs and a 9/11 connection to Saddam Hussein.
The Iraq war has been a gift to Bin Laden, while we know that Saddam, mad as he was, had nothing to do with 9/11, and psychologically would have seen Bin Laden as a threat and killed him long before he would have worked with him. Same mentality as Stalin Bush's presidency, stolen in Fl in 2000 and most likely in ohio in 2004 with vote rigging, etc, may well spell the end of civilization, because his Iraq war prevented us from finishing off Bin Laden in Afghanistan, while becoming a rallying cry for Muslims world wide to Jihadism, a situation supported by the early 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by our govt.
Anything, virtually anything, including the complete collapse of Iraq would be better then letting Bush and his Mafioso / theo-fascists stay in power. Their only goal is superwealth, e.g stealing the Iraqi peoples oil through rigged contracts, for billions of $$ are not enough for them. The lives of our troops are just pawns in this great game. At the same time the super-rich in this country are working to destroy the middle class by exporting jobs, e.g. almost the whole electronics industy is gone, and what they can't export, they often can hire illegal aliens for at a fraction of the cost of American workers. Go into any electronics store, and try and find something that was not made in the far east. Anything.
So there you have it. Our troops murdered by the thousands in a war based on lies. Our jobs disappearing overseas. Exxon making was it 40 Billion $$ in a quarter because they got away with tripling the price of gas. They also had the gall to give their retiring CEO a $400 million $ retirement payment, while many companies, e.g. I work for circuit city, are firing all their long term employees, and yet the hiring sign is out, all they want to do is cash in big stock options while paying as little as possible to the employees, e.g could you live on $8.25/hour?.
Yes Bush believes in God. His God's name is not Jesus, or Yahweh, or Allah, or Adonoi. It is GREED. He makes Nixon look like a saint by comparison.
This is yet another example of how mainstream media are failing democracy. But there are events impending that are much worse!
Media Must Press for Policy Promises!
One of two history making events may occur this month, but the one more probable is a US or Israeli preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities that plunges the world into a wider and longer Middle East war. Admirals have been appointed Theater Commander in the Middle East and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Also there are, I believe, now 3 U.S. carrier task forces in the Gulf. And both the U.S. and Iraqi congresses are in recess. Every time a Democratic presidential candidate makes vague promises of "withdrawal" of U.S. forces from Iraq, it raises the probability that Israel will make such a preemptive attack while our troops are still in the area and under Bush command.
The other event would be that the media, mainstream and/or blogosphere, force Bush and all presidential candidates to state definitive plans for Iraq, Iran and what to do if Israel were to attack Iran. Media might even do another service by urging all progressive candidates for President to set aside personal ambition for the moment and find agreement among themselves on such a definite plan for partial withdrawal and redeployment of remaining U.S. troops together with a united policy on what each, as the next president would order, or allow U.S. forces to do (on military advice) and on what he or she would REFUSE to do to support Israel in the event it made a preemptive attack on Iran and was subject to retaliation by Iran or other Muslim nations or groups. The American people have a right to know what they are in for. Would the candidates, e.g., order, allow, or prohibit cruise missiles to be launched from ships at targets in Muslim states? Would they order, allow, or forbid U.S. ground troops to be used in retaliating Muslim nations or on Israeli soil?
Here is a withdrawal and redeployment plan I think Democrats and other progressives could agree upon. No plan is perfectly just! You can't unkill people you've killed. U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq's cities toward its borders with Turkey and Iran. U.S. long-term military occupation of these oil field areas is the only thing that would cause oil companies to make the multi-billion dollar long term investment to modernize them. The companies could buy the crude and store it for later resale. Proceeds from the sales could be distributed equitably among Iraqis by a unit of our militry, e.g., an enhanced SIGIR, thus bypassing the Iraqi assembly stalemate.
The US would ask for and fund a large U.N. force to guard Iraq's borders to allow return of refugees. It would be interposed between our forces and those of Iran and other bordering countries. As our troops redeploy, they would escort WILLING Iraqis to partition areas of people of the same religion or ethnicity. Others can return home and assume the risk of fighting or making peace. We will help mixed marriage Iraqis to emigrate and open our own county to them or pay other countries to take them in and help establish them.
Finally, we would move the whole weak Iraqi central government out of Baghdad to an isolated, hardened U.S. base where its independence can be protected by us, so that Baghdad can be partitioned along the Tigris, with Sunnis moving from its east to west and Shia from west to east. We will give the Green Zone to Sunnis willing to move from east Baghdad to the west and convert the $1/2 billion embassy to a hospital, orphanage and war memorial for all.
Other countries, our own, Brazil and Myanmar, have moved their capitals! France and India once had two capitals each. A DOZEN other countries, including Israel, South Africa and Bolivia, now have multiple capitals as a result of war and partition.
If the media don't take these steps, they will have to pretend that they were completely caught as stupidly flat-footed as the Republicans and Democrats, if Bush or the Israelis make this preemptive attack on Iran. Worse yet, the whole world will be saddled with a wider war. Will the media do these things and can candidates personal ambition be set aside to do this?
There are three kinds of conservative journalists these days: Liars, Bloody Liars, and Dammed Liars.
A little success could be bad for us-- the us being the US. Yeah it could be bad for the US to have the sort of "success" that is possible. I take it as a given that the US can at any given period of time have military success in Iraq. Such success will lead to more of the same foreign policy and to long range failure. So yeah success in the surge will be bad for the US.