Couric did not challenge Petraeus' assertion that violence in Iraq has fallen "dramatically"
SUMMARY: Katie Couric did not challenge Gen. David Petraeus' assertion during an interview that "if you look at the country as a whole ... the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents has been reduced dramatically" in Iraq. Couric failed to note the conclusion reached by a recent progress report by the Government Accountability Office on Iraqi benchmarks that "[i]t is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased;" the report also stated that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months."
During a report containing an interview with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq, that aired on the September 4 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric did not challenge Petraeus' assertion that "if you look at the country as a whole ... the number of ethnosectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents has been reduced dramatically." Neither in the interview, nor in her overall report, did Couric note the conclusion reached by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its recent progress report on Iraqi benchmarks -- which Couric referred to at the outset of the broadcast -- that "[i]t is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased." The report also stated that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months [February to July 2007]."
As Media Matters for America noted, at a September 4 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) claimed that the GAO accounted for data only through July and added that Petraeus recently provided him data for August showing a reduction in violence in Iraq. Asked to reconcile his agency's findings with Petraeus' view, Comptroller General David M. Walker said that the GAO "asked [the military] for, but did not receive, the information through the end of August," and that even though the military "were unable to give us the data through August" "we obtained their views for where the situation was through as of August 30th." Walker added that "there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree." He added that "part of the problem that [the GAO] had in reaching a conclusion about sectarian violence is there are multiple sources showing different levels of violence with different trends."
At the beginning of the September 4 broadcast, Couric noted that "[a] congressional report out today says violence in Iraq remains high and the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks." Indeed, the supplemental war funding bill that Congress passed on May 24 and President Bush signed on May 25 -- the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 -- requires an "independent assessment" of the Iraqi benchmarks by the Comptroller General, who heads the GAO, "[n]ot later than September 1, 2007."
From the September 4 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: It's early Wednesday morning here in the Iraqi capital as we begin four days of special broadcasts on one of the most critical issues facing our country today -- the war. A congressional report out today says violence in Iraq remains high and the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks. An even more critical report comes in a week on the progress of the surge.
[...]
COURIC: Our visit involved extensive security afforded any four-star general, but General Petraeus insisted you can feel when a place is dangerous.
PETRAEUS: Let's go. You know, come on. Look at all the good stuff in here.
COURIC: And he believes this one is not.
COURIC: Some people might be watching this and saying, "Oh, this is a nice dog and pony show. Yeah, there are some areas of calm. But if you look at the country as a whole, it's still a nightmare."
PETRAEUS: Well, if you look at the country as a whole, there is an unacceptable level of violence, but that level of violence, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, you name it, the number of incidents --
COURIC: Sunni-Shia killing, Shia-Sunni --
PETRAEUS: -- has been reduced dramatically. That is not to say that there are not places where it is very, very tough. The question is, which way is it headed? And I think it's headed up.
COURIC: Headed up enough to start reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq? Yesterday, while talking to servicemen and women in Anbar Province, President Bush raised the possibility. When I sat down with General Petraeus following our tour, he left the door open.
COURIC: As you know, Senator John Warner [VA], a very high-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, after a visit to Iraq, said some troops must begin to come home by Christmas. Do you agree with that?
PETRAEUS: Well, wait and see when I offer recommendations. I'll brief Congress on that in about a week and a half. The surge has to run its course. There's no question about that. The question is, how can you make adjustments to the force, bring the force levels down, and retain what we have fought so hard to achieve?
Petreaus is a pretty sad case. A general who would dissemble to cast aside the needs of his army in order to meet the needs of his political bosses. I guess that's why we're talking about him at all though. He never would have ascended to his current level if the Bush team didn't seek out a pliable puppet.
If things are getting so much better, doesn't that mean we can start reducing our forces there???
It seems like, to the White House, both increasing violence in Iraq or reducing violence in Iraq are reasons for "staying the course"
...not that I believe the White House spin that the violence is reducing overall in Iraq.
Hey, it worked for tax cuts. Pay down the debt a smidge, and it's time for a tax cut for rich people! What's that? We've got a deficit again? Well, that calls for a tax cut for rich people! Someone got the last pack of M&M's from the snack machine? TAX CUT FOR THE RICH!
I do believe the tax cuts benefit the people who actually PAY taxes the most. BTW, how much income would I have to earn in order for you to call me "rich".
Here's an even better question...How many lives is George Bush's ego worth?
Is there anyone in TV land anticipating Katie's Big Adventure. "Look honey, Katie's in Iraq, she'll tell us the truth." What's the fricking point?
A "sad case" huh?
Please give us YOUR qualifications to make that judgement Sundog.
Here is Gen. Petraeus' bio:
http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/LTG_Petreaus.pdf
I served under Gen Petraeus in Bosnia and I can attest to his qualifications. He would have ascended to his current "level" with or without the Bush team. It's called fast tracking and he was on it.
I would suggest some research on our military commanders before making asinine blanket statements.
I know Patraeus is a bright, talented guy. That's why I call this a sad case. It was clear with this current appointment that the Bushies were looking for someone who would 'discover' exactly what he is now reporting. It's a case of bad leaders leading otherwise good men into bad places. Colin Powell was a guy with a hell of a lot of promise for himself and the country. His association with these scoundrels led him straight to the UN holding a vial of 'anthrax' and destroyed his reputation with the international community. Bad leaders divide and diminish us as a country, pitting you against me. And politics aside, thanks for your service. My 60 year old father in law followed your tracks into Eastern Europe and accepted a call up a few years ago. He's doctor in the Army and a really good dude.
Ok Hogprint, I'll give you a point here. I don't know if Patraeus is dissembling here or if he actually believes this. I can see that there is no way for me to know what he actually believes. So, benefit of the doubt to him. I will maintain that he got this assignment at least for the reason that he would be predisposed to see things the 'right' way to support Bush's case. As for my qualifications for believing the general wrong in his assesment here, I've been right about just about every aspect of this war since before it started. And I've been getting thrashed as hating my country for voicing my concern for my country. So you'll have to pardon my combative tone. And I'll pardon your 'asinine' remark because I know it comes from your genuine respect for this man. And as I've acknowledged, I spoke out of place saying he's dissembling because I don't know that. I have good reason to think at least that he's wrong and being used by bad people. I maintain that this is a sad case and it seems sadder to me when I think of your perspective. Because I guarantee you that his career won't be in the long term what it would have been if he didn't get mixed up so closely with this administration. He will always be remembered now in this role as giving cover to Bush the Scoundrel. Just as Powell may wake up at night in his old age rubbing his hands like Lady Macbeth and muttering, "Out damn anthrax." Peace.
Ok Hogprint, now it's the next day and there are all of these reports emerging both independent and from within the military that suggest that the case Patraeus was making in that interview was false. So here's what we have to go on. He was picked by the Bush team to lead in Iraq and give this report. This administration has a clear track record of promoting those who agree with their version of 'reality' and push aside those who might disagree. Witness what happened to the generals before the war who criticized Rumsfeld's plan for the invasion and occupation. They were right of course, but they are gone too. So that history in mind and these reports that show Bush and Patraeus "cherry-picking" information to make their claims, I think my original suspision that Patraeus is dissembling probably has merit. I'm genuinely sorry for you. It's rare to get to really admire someone the way you obviously do with the general. But all the facts on the ground don't really support your assertion that my original post was 'asinine.'
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Ahh, Hogsprint the expert! Holding that Iraq is a victory hiding in the weeds, a Republican "I told you so!" waiting it's moment to jump out at a Democrat for having a weak stomach for war!
That would make the Democrats the cause for defeat in Vietnam, not the North Vietnamese! That makes the domino theorey reborn the "We'll fight them there instead of Here" making little more sense today than in the past! There was a big difference for America, there was a DRAFT!
The Republican Party, it's Presidential Administration, Republican House & Senate, and a whole government bent on loyalty to the party before our nation, or constitution surrendered to greed, and their lust for power at home to be the Wartime President, the Republican Party of the New American Colonialism!
Let's make more comparisons to Bosnia, whom we did not loose a soldier and had absolutely no vested interest beyond peace, opposed two Texas Draft-Dodging Oilman and OIL!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I would suggest some research on our military commanders before making asinine blanket statements. Hogprint
You find me a military commander who will be HONEST with Junior and I'll find you a military commander submitting his retirement papers, that's what history has shown us. When and IF General. Patraeus submits an HONEST and TRUTHFUL report I will believe him but if he goes the rout as others have he'll deserves no praise no matter what "track" he's on.
It's gonna be interesting to compare Bush's and the General's comments to the leaked GAO documents. (Whoever leaked those docs is a patriot in my book.)
Well, we know that somebody over there has been lying to the troops...most of them still think Saddam was in on 9/11. It wouldn't be the chain of command feeding them this line of bullsh*t, would it? Surely not!
I hope the day comes when we admire the truth tellers who, like Brig. General Smedley Butler, stand up and tell the truth no matter what the cost...thanks to Sundog and Pearl for saying it too.
Mary is the "truth" only possible when you personally are in agreement?
Wow John, that's really far out man. What is the 'truth' really but just our perception of reality right? Groovy man. Love it when the righties become philosophers of 'relativity' when they have no actual argument. C'mon John can't you at least come up with one of the usual straw man arguments or a screaming insult of all things 'liberal' (left of Mussolini) ? So you mean there could be an entire universe in an atom under my fingernail? That means our entire universe could just be an atom under the fingernail of some giant. Wow man, who knows really? Can I buy some pot from you?
johnwiz2, is the "truth" only possible when it's coming from Bush, or are we allowed to believe things like, oh I don't know, actual statistics?
The Bush admin is playing with the numbers. They removed all deaths caused by bombings from "sectarian violence" statistics. That's why the GAO report concluded sectarian violence is not being reduced at all while Bush is telling us it has.
How many times are you people going to be duped by the same liars????
Besides, if things have improved so "dramatically" like Petraeus claims, doesn't that mean we can start reducing our role there?
Anyone who thinks military brass is inherently "too noble" to lie is....well.....naive. Most of them are good, honest people, but once they get to the higher levels, many become politicians more than soldiers.
Is Patraeus lying? Don't know yet. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I also won't assume that he's telling the truth just because he wears a uniform.
The truth is only possible when it is in agreement with the FACTS. When it is contrary to the FACTS it is NOT the truth.
If true, this story trumps everything...
[link to www.salon.com]
Yea Nerzog but what's really TRUE man. Me and Johndog have been chortling bongs all morning and we realized that when it comes to the crimes of Republicans ya can't really KNOW anything man. Ya dig? I mean how do we really know Bush is even president? Really KNOW it. Ya dig? Where is John anyway? He split for some more breakfast twinkies seems like hours ago.
Maybe he's disconnected from the Matrix...
This pretty much shows Petraues ain't no General Patton.
That's right, Patton would have marched on Tehran by now. ;)
yes he would have. But not against this presidents wishes.
Ok ok, how bout this. The 1978 Dallas Cowboys against Patton. But wait wait. A little tiny Patton.... I give it to Patton.
I will have a beer with you on that one.
I'll toast you gametime. Go Bears!
We don't even accurately measure what is and isn't sectarian violence.
We consider being shot in the front of the head, a criminal act, not sectarian violence. We don't consider people who die from suicide bombers in the total figures (that the gov't is using). So even though sectarian violence HAS NOT fallen, it really is much worse than is being reported due to all the "categorizing" of if a death qualifies as sectarian violence or not.
The main criticism of Couric by MMFA seems to be that she didn't have a shouting match with General David Petraeus and then start chanting some anti-war slogan while burning her bra.
Maybe Couric wanted to have an interview and be respectful of one of America's truly great men who are sacrificing so much for our freedom?
Honestly, give the gal a break.
Yeah John, far out. That was like TOTALLY what Media Matters was saying if you look at it from a certain way. Have you ever looked at your hands? I mean really LOOKED at them? Far out.
No, their criticism is that Couric allowed Petreaus to lie about violence in Iraq being reduced "dramatically" when the actual statistics (not the new White House statistics which no longer count people killed in bombings or shot from the front as "sectarian violence"). show violence is not decreasing at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html
Ah, no, the main criticism of Couric is she didnt have the FACTS that more people died in Iraq this summer than any previous summer and CHALLENGE his questionable statement in other words DO. HER. JOB.
"The question is, which way is it headed? And I think it's headed up." -- Petraeus
All disingenuous if not dishonest playing around with the numbers aside, I hate this we're making progress crapola. It's meaningless without context. It's like telling a cancer patient. "things are looking up, you'll probably die in agonzing pain in 4 weeks instead of the 2 weeks we originally estimated". Or a contractor who is building a house stating "Good news, last month we were 400% over budget, but this month we are only 375% overbudget."
Saying progress is being made or things are "heading up" is meaningless BS in the context of Iraq.
You can only report bleak and negative bs for so long. I am sure it can really get to a person. Then again, maybe the 130 degree heat has gotten to her? Heck, Schumer's foot-in-mouth condition is all the left needs to cover the surge. Try to get the media to cover his latest treasonous, lunatic rant. You all might want to shut your traps and consider yourselves lucky that Katie didn't push.
The reference to Kool-Aid is getting old. Do me a favor and read up on the so-called tax cuts for the "rich". You know you will learn something. The current members of the party on the left remind me of the radicals of the 60's and 70's. Oh wait, they ARE the radicals of the 60's and 70's!
Yeah dough we'll all shut our traps. Your language is so revealing. And why don't you just enlighten us what you think about the tax cuts for the rich seeing as many of the folks here are pretty well read up. Sorry is this ok? Am I talking too much? Should I shut my trap? Please don't hurt me.
Since you are void of any humor (most nerds are), let me explain it a little slooowwweeer. I was merely trying to give you some advice. Katie does not have the balls to stand up to someone like General Petraeus. Would you? Hell no, since you all will need to do a fancy back-step since the surge is actually working. Anyway, you should consider yourself lucky that Schumer’s latest lunacy is not being broadcast all over the TV and national media. In simple terms, don’t push your luck, sundoggie.
Want REAL news, go to Asia Times.com, because CBS "news" isn't giving the true picture of Iraq and Fallujah is a good example .
Fallujah- is a police state, that does not allow private cars to be driven anywhere in the city, by orders of U.S. military, CBS won't tell you that. Fallujah has no electricity, few jobs, cooking oil quadrupled, (during attack on fallujah EVERY car left in city was blown up and every dog and cat was killed , (disease reasons), I guess if you kill everything that moved , that would be a problem . Nobody gets in or out of Fallujah without U.S. military issued ID cards, something CBS " news" covers up .
So little Katie might as well be wearing an UNCLE SAM costume, she's nothing more than a cheerleader for the OCCUPATION .